Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — HEALTH

The Secretary of State was asked—

Ambulance Response Times (Cornwall)

Mr. Matthew Taylor: If he will make a statement on ambulance response times in Cornwall. [62442]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton): Ambulance response times in Cornwall improved in 1997–98. The percentage of 999 calls reached within 19 minutes rose by more than 1 per cent. despite a 1.5 per cent. rise in the number of ambulance callouts.

Mr. Taylor: The Minister did not say, however, that the response times were very much below those in the citizens charter for health standards. Anyone calling an ambulance in Cornwall stands a very high chance of it taking well over the response time in the citizens charter. Is that not because there is no proper funding for ambulance services in rural areas to take account of the obvious extra difficulties in reaching patients quickly? Does that not result in patients' lives being put at risk?

Mr. Hutton: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not feel able to join me in congratulating NHS staff in Cornwall on achieving the improvements in response times to which I have referred. We are aware of the difficulties and officials in the NHS regional office are working closely with the health authority and the ambulance service in Cornwall to see what further action can be taken to improve response times. The hon. Gentleman mentioned resources. The changes introduced to the weighted capitation formula for 1998–99 include a geographical cost adjustment for emergency ambulance services which benefited Cornwall health authority by more than £1 million.

Dental Services

Mrs. Helen Brinton: When he will publish his strategy for NHS dentistry. [62443]

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): We will publish our new strategy

before too long, when we have considered all the points raised by those who have contributed their views on the future of NHS dentistry.

Mrs. Brinton: I thank the Minister for that reply and for the additional funding promised by the Government to increase people's right and accessibility to NHS dentistry. I note that it is 20 times more than that provided by the previous Administration, but I would like to ask the Minister for his proposals and his strategy for sorting out the current bureaucratic muddle that seems to be delaying the allocation of funds to dental practices.

Mr. Milburn: As my hon. Friend rightly says, we have made available extra money to improve access to NHS dentistry and to try to clear up the mess left by our predecessors, who ran down NHS dentistry in too many parts of the country. The Government are committed to building it up rather than running it down, and to date we have approved some 250 bids under the investing in dentistry initiative. As a result, an extra 600,000 patients now have access to NHS dental care. An additional 90 proposals are in the pipeline, including some from my hon. Friend's area, and we are assessing them carefully.

Mr. Alan Duncan: On the issue of free dental checks for all, the Deputy Prime Minister said on the BBC:
We've got to find the money to finance it".
Does the Minister still stand by that commitment?

Mr. Milburn: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, his party was in power for 18 years. If he is so committed to free dental checks, perhaps he should have done something about it.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if a dentist mistreats patients in order fraudulently to create work for himself, those patients should be properly compensated? Does he agree that it is not acceptable for any insurance company to reject any such claim without giving proper reason? Does he plan to do something about that in future?

Mr. Milburn: I am not aware of the issue that my hon. Friend raises, although I am happy to look at any individual case. The overwhelming majority of NHS dentists—and NHS staff—are trustworthy, honest and reliable. However, we intend to take tough measures against the minority who are not. As my hon. Friend is aware, we have recently appointed a new director of counter-fraud work who will spearhead the assault on fraud wherever it occurs—in dentistry, medicine or anywhere else within the NHS.

Cancer Patients (Drugs)

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: If he will make a statement on the refusal by some health authorities to fund recently approved drugs for cancer patients. [62444]

The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): We want to ensure that cost-effective clinical services, including treatments for cancer, are provided on a consistent national basis. There is unacceptable


fragmentation and variation which we are tackling, first by establishing next April the national institute for clinical excellence, which will set standards for clinical excellence and secondly, through the commission for health improvement, which will ensure that those standards are applied in practice.

Mr. St. Aubyn: On 30 June at Health questions, the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) told the House:
no one will be denied the drugs they need. That is a guarantee."—[Official Report, 30 June 1998; Vol. 315, c. 143.]
Yet we hear today from the Minister that there is differentiation in the allocation of drugs that cancer patients need. How can she possibly justify an immediate breach of the promise by her ministerial colleague less than six months ago?

Ms Jowell: Frankly, that is pretty thin. My right hon. Friend was referring to the approach to consultation and the local priorities that would be adopted by primary care groups. The hon. Gentleman's question was about cancer. For the benefit of his constituents, who may feel cheated if he does not receive the answer, I shall set out precisely what is happening in cancer treatments involving Taxol, about which there is some concern.
We asked the Standing Medical Advisory Committee to assess the latest research results and evidence; it endorsed the view that Taxol is the preferred treatment for ovarian cancer. We then wrote to all national health service regional directors of public health to inform them that the committee had endorsed that evidence. Evidence-based guidance on improving outcomes in gynaecological cancers will be published in the spring and will be sent to all health authorities and trusts. It will refer to the use of Taxol in the treatment of ovarian cancer.

Mr. Bob Blizzard: Many cancer patients will have cancer because of smoking. Although no doubt many people will continue to choose to kill themselves through smoking, does my hon. Friend agree—bearing in mind last week's White Paper, particularly its title—that it is unacceptable that those of us who do not smoke should continue to be put at risk of being killed by those who do smoke? What steps will she take to protect non-smokers from the dangers of passive smoking?

Ms Jowell: The title of the White Paper—"Smoking Kills"—is a statement of fact. My hon. Friend is right to suggest that we will not make progress in tackling cancer or heart disease unless we reduce the number of deaths from smoking. He will know that the measures set out in the White Paper include an agreement with the Health and Safety Commission for consultation on the establishment of an approved code to guide practice on smoking at work, which will have legal status if approved. Moreover, the five leading organisations in the hospitality trade have given a commitment to work together to improve ventilation in pubs, wine bars and restaurants where people smoke, and to increase the number of smoke-free public places.

Dr. Evan Harris: The hon. Lady said that she had a system for the evidence-based prescribing of Taxol, but will she accept that there will be new drugs, which will not be as widely

available as they should be? Does she recognise the fact—I seem to invite her every three weeks to do so—that rationing is taking place in the NHS? That is nothing to be ashamed of—there will always be such tension. Will she at least start a debate with Liberal Democrats and the public and find out how much people are prepared to pay to ensure that rationing—I invite her to use that word—is not as extreme as it is at the moment?

Ms Jowell: I make it clear once again that the NHS will not apply blanket bans to clinically effective treatments. We have also made it clear that the NHS must be able to keep pace with what are, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, rapid advances and developments, particularly in new drug treatments, so that those treatments are properly assessed for their clinical and cost effectiveness. We must ensure that the status and benefits of the new drugs are established through the work of the national institute for clinical excellence and the commission for health improvement.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: Is there rationing or is there not?

Ms Jowell: No.

Miss Widdecombe: In view of the Minister's unequivocal statement that there is no rationing—which I think will be greeted with disbelief by the medical profession—can she now comment, for the benefit of the House, on the availability not only of the cancer drugs, but of beta-interferon, which is rationed; recombinant, which is rationed; Aricept, which is rationed; and the new anti-psychotics, which are rationed?

Ms Jowell: There are two ways of dealing with precisely the kinds of prescribed drugs to which the right hon. Member has referred. We had 18 years of the Conservatives' way, which produced fragmentation and 3,000 GP fundholders, who all had different systems of prescribing. The alternative—which would be just as unacceptable to the people of this country—would be to define clinical protocols, which would mean that everybody's treatment was preordained in Richmond house.
What we are doing—in, as I am sure the right hon. Lady will forgive me for suggesting, a third way approach to treatment—is establishing the national institute for clinical excellence, which will assess and evaluate new treatments, and we will ensure that those new treatments are made available as quickly as possible to patients, who will benefit from them.
Frankly, the right hon. Lady does her constituents and the people of this country no good by raising spectres that are not borne out in practice. In practice, people will receive treatment on the basis of their clinical need.

Miss Widdecombe: I am tempted to observe that the pantomime season must have come early. May I ask the Minister a straightforward question? Under her Government, are any drugs not being prescribed by practitioners or others on the ground of cost—yes or no?

Ms Jowell: I would be very happy to volunteer to be either the front or the back of the right hon. Lady's


pantomime horse. I have already made it clear that the basis on which drugs are prescribed and treatment administered is clinical need and proven clinical effectiveness.

Millennium Compliance

Mr. Mark Todd: What assessment he has made of the preparedness of ambulance services in respect of year 2000 compliance. [62445]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton): Ambulance services are making good progress towards ensuring year 2000 compliance. Progress is monitored quarterly by the national health service executive.

Mr. Todd: May I point out to my hon. Friend that Derbyshire ambulance trust has not yet reached year 2000 compliance? However, the recently announced merger between Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire and Leicestershire ambulance services may allow it to use the more advanced technology available in those services. I very much hope that the merger will not distract Derbyshire ambulance trust from improving response times in the area, which, sadly, are the worst in the country, in spite of the tremendous efforts of the trust's hard-working staff, who have put in a great deal of time and effort to try to remedy the situation.

Mr. Hutton: I can assure my hon. Friend that the new trust that will operate in the east midlands will improve the delivery of service to his constituents and others in the east midlands. That is clear, and we approved the merger for those reasons. We are monitoring closely issues concerning improving response times for the Derbyshire ambulance service. As he will know, additional expenditure has been authorised to ensure year 2000 compliance, and we expect to see an improvement in response times.

Mr. Philip Hammond: Can the Minister confirm his current estimate of the total cost to the NHS of millennium compliance? What progress has his Department made in seeking to recover any part of that anticipated cost from suppliers of equipment to the NHS?

Mr. Hutton: I am afraid that I am unable to respond in detail to the hon. Gentleman's questions. I am happy to look into the matter and respond to him in writing, if that would be helpful. However, Government Members will take with a pinch of salt the lectures from Conservative Members, who had plenty of opportunity to address these issues in government, and conspicuously failed to do so.

Mr. Paddy Tipping: As Derbyshire does not have millennium compliance and Nottinghamshire does, will my hon. Friend take steps to ensure that the new ambulance trust of Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire and Derbyshire rises to the level of the best rather than sinking to that of the worst.

Mr. Hutton: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. Let me make it absolutely clear

that, following approval for the merger, the Derbyshire ambulance service will use the same accident and emergency control systems that are currently in use by Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire, and that those two systems are completely year 2000 compliant.

NHS Review Panels

Dr. Vincent Cable: What plans he has to review the workings of independent review panels in the NHS. [62446]

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): An independent evaluation of all aspects of national health service complaints procedures is due to begin in the new year. It will include consideration of the independent review procedures.

Dr. Cable: Does the Minister agree that there is a great danger that the review panels' independence—which is so vital for patients—could be undermined by the intervention of health service officials? Will he agree to take a fresh look at a case about which I have written to him, concerning a constituent of mine, the Hertfordshire health authority and the Queen Elizabeth hospital? The authority arbitrarily ruled that a maximum of two members of a family could be present at an inquiry into their mother's death, and as the family is larger than that and is unwilling to be divided, the inquiry cannot proceed.

Mr. Milburn: I am certainly extremely happy to refer that case to the people who will carry out the review of the NHS complaints procedure. That procedure was introduced by the previous Government in 1996; as it has now operated for a couple of years, we think that it is right to review it, and in particular to consider it from the point of view of complainants, patients and indeed the NHS staff who have to operate the system. I am happy to take on board the hon. Gentleman's comments and to ensure that they are fed into the review.

Tobacco

Mr. Andrew Love: When he expects to publish his White Paper on tobacco. [62448]

Mr. Ian Stewart: When he expects to publish his White Paper on tobacco. [62451]

The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): The White Paper, "Smoking Kills" was published on 10 December 1998.

Mr. Love: I thank my hon. Friend for her reply. Is she aware that the pressure group ASH—Action on Smoking and Health—recently described the White Paper as the first serious and sustained assault on the enormous burden of illness and death caused by smoking since scientists first brought its dangers to our attention 40 years ago? Is she also aware that, each and every day, about 450 children take up smoking, and that half of all smokers will die from the habit? In the light of the White Paper, what further action will the Government take in their war against smoking?

Ms Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend very much indeed for that question. I am glad that ASH, and almost every


other organisation except the Tobacco Manufacturers Association, welcomed the White Paper's sensible approach and the fact that we have set very clear targets and recognised that achievement will come through the combined efforts of Government and other organisations that can deliver solutions to the many problems that arise.
At the centre of our concern about smoking is the objective of cutting the number of children who take it up in the first place. My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the staggering figure of an estimated 450 children a day taking up smoking. The action that we intend to take was clearly set out in the White Paper: tough enforcement, including a ban on advertising, and an unprecedented campaign to start shifting children's attitudes so that they no longer see smoking as a passport to adulthood. We, and all the organisations that we have worked with, recognise that it will take time, which is why we have set targets for 2005 and 2010.

Mr. Stewart: Smoking causes one in seven deaths from heart disease, and my constituency has the highest incidence of heart disease in the country. In my local authority of Salford, the British Heart Foundation runs the Heartstart scheme, which trains young people to give emergency life support to those suffering from heart attacks and teaches them about the causes of heart attacks, including smoking. Does my hon. Friend agree that such schemes help local communities and educate young people about the dire consequences of smoking, and will she commend the scheme to other areas?

Ms Jowell: I am happy to commend the Heartstart scheme that my hon. Friend mentions. We want to ensure that we do everything we can to spread the benefits of best practice more widely. Next year, we will publish the public health White Paper, which will set clear targets for tackling heart disease, especially in areas where the rate is high, such as my hon. Friend's constituency. I reiterate the point I made earlier: that the White Paper "Smoking Kills" is a critical part of our battle against cancer and our battle to reduce unnecessary deaths from heart disease.

Mr. Jim Marshall: I declare an interest as a smoker. Although I welcome the Government's proposals, I am sceptical about their likely success. If the Government are serious about curbing smoking, why do not they adopt a fiscal approach and massively increase the price of cigarettes, so that people cannot afford to buy them? The Government could also levy a windfall tax on the tobacco companies, so that they are no longer so profitable.

Ms Jowell: My hon. Friend will see from the White Paper that fiscal measures are part of the battle against smoking, because keeping the price up means that children are less likely to be able to afford them and to take up smoking in the first place.
I emphasise the extent to which all the measures in the White Paper are based on the best available evidence that they work. Seven out of 10 smokers want to give up, and access to smoking cessation services is critical in enabling smokers to do so.
All the evidence from other countries is that one cannot stop children taking up smoking unless tobacco advertising is banned. Our approach to developing the package of proposals announced last week was guided by and rooted in the evidence.

Mixed-sex Wards (Goodmayes)

Dr. Julian Lewis: If he will make a statement on the advice given to Goodmayes hospital by the NHS executive concerning the possible continuance of mixed-sex wards in psychiatric units. [62449]

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): The advice given to the Goodmayes hospital about the elimination of mixed-sex wards in psychiatric units is exactly the same as the advice that has been given ever since the new Government started to issue advice on the matter. We are determined to eliminate mixed-sex wards in all hospitals, including psychiatric ones.

Dr. Lewis: Does the Secretary of State understand that a contradiction is apparent? Does he recall that on two previous occasions when I have raised the issue of the continuation of mixed-sex wards—and even the construction of new mixed-sex wards in psychiatric units—he said, in forthright and welcome terms, "If this is going on, I am going to put a stop to it." In the light of what he said when stopping the mixed-sex ward at Charing Cross hospital, how does he explain the letter from the NHS executive to Goodmayes hospital which stated:
completely segregating services would not be acceptable, as there are good clinical reasons to provide an environment in hospitals which, as closely as it can, prepares people for their return to their own accommodation"?
Is not that a backsliding on the categorical commitment that the Secretary of State has given? That backsliding was confirmed in a letter to me, dated 1 December, from the Under-Secretary of State, in which he says:
Within a mental health unit, medical opinion favours an environment which is as normal as possible.
Does the Secretary of State accept that medical opinion, as represented by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, does not favour that sort of latitude?

Mr. Dobson: Our promise was to eliminate mixed-sex wards. I am confident that about 95 per cent. of health authorities will have done so by 2002. When the hon. Gentleman raised with me the matter of the building of some mixed-sex psychiatric wards at the Charing Cross hospital, I put a stop to it. They have been redesigned, and they are no longer mixed-sex wards. The proposal for Goodmayes hospital is not for mixed-sex wards, but will mean that some of the day rooms and other facilities will be available to both male and female patients. That is reasonable, if the clinicians responsible for those patients consider it appropriate.
I have made it clear to those clinicians that such a decision must be subject to the absolute certainty that measures are taken to protect women from any form of harassment—sexual or otherwise—by the men in the unit. However, the wards in which the patients sleep will be segregated, as will the washing facilities and lavatories. If the women want to get away from the men, they will be able to do so. That means that we are keeping our pledge, not evading it.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: The Government are to be commended for ending what has undoubtedly been a very unpopular practice, which was introduced by the


previous Government to save money. Does my right hon. Friend agree that elderly people who are sick and need to go into hospital will especially welcome the measure?

Mr. Dobson: In fairness to the previous Government, I must say—it grieves me to do so—that the practice was not entirely their fault. For a brief period during that Government's time in office, the conventional wisdom among some of the practitioners in this sector was that mixed-sex wards were all right and were akin to mixed hairdressers and mixed saunas. However, it is not like that for people in hospital, and we are putting a stop to that mistaken fashion. The previous Government did nothing about it, but we are going to eliminate mixed-sex wards. We are going about doing so, and have found £70 million to do it with.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I have constantly welcomed the Secretary of State's stance on mixed-sex wards, which I know were introduced by the practitioners. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in a recent answer to the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland stated that about six or seven of the units in Northern Ireland still run mixed-sex wards? Will it be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to speak to his right hon. Friend to ensure that Government policy is consistent throughout the nation?

Mr. Dobson: It is foolish in this House for people who are not experts to tread on Northern Ireland territory, as the history of the area shows. However, I will make sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is aware of what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Road Accident Victims

Mr. David Taylor: If he will make a statement on his policy on emergency treatment fees in the NHS for road accident victims. [62452]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton): The Government intend to end collection of the emergency treatment fee by national health service trusts. An amendment to section 158 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, removing the right of NHS trusts to the fee, is contained in the Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Bill which was introduced in the House of Commons on 27 November 1998 and which was given a Second Reading on 8 December.

Mr. Taylor: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware, that on 12 March 1991, the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), who was then a junior Health Minister, stated in a written answer that the Conservative Government intended to abolish the emergency treatment fee
as soon as a suitable legislative vehicle becomes available"?—[Official Report, 12 March 1991; Vol. 187, c. 493.]
That vehicle was clearly involved in a nasty collision, because the then Government announced the death of that intention in June 1995.
In the light of that, how does my hon. Friend react to the Opposition's criticism of what the Government intend to do, and how does he rate, on a scale of one to 20, the utter political hypocrisy of that criticism?

Mr. Hutton: I am grateful for that question. It is probably another example of hot air as regards the Opposition's promises when they were in government—promises on which they conspicuously failed to deliver. On this occasion, as on many others, it has taken a Labour Government to clear up the mess that they left behind.

Children's Homes

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: If he will make a statement on his plans for the future management of children's homes. [62453]

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): On 5 November, I spelled out to the House our plans for the future management of children's homes to ensure that children are better looked after and to protect them from abuse, exploitation and neglect. Further details were given in our White Paper, "Modernising Social Services", which I announced to the House on 30 November.

Mrs. Gorman: I thank the Minister for his reply. I sympathise with the view he takes, and admire the fact that he intends to do something about that serious matter. Given the risk that is posed by men running some care homes, which is obvious from the number of cases of abuse, he might consider recycling grannies—women who have raised families and who are good at spotting when something is going on. If such people were in charge of homes, the children in them would have a naturally sympathetic character to whom to turn. Will he consider that as a practical and serious proposition?

Mr. Dobson: The short answer is yes, I will consider it, as it seems to be a perfectly sensible proposition. My only point on the hon. Lady's introductory remarks is that for boys in homes, as in schools, it is a good idea to have safe men around to provide role models of how grown-up males should behave. However, we need to ensure that they are not among the abusers and exploiters of children. The hon. Lady's point is practical and sensible, and I will look into it.

Mr. Hilton Dawson: May I commend my right hon. Friend's commitment to the radical reform of the care system and the ending of abuse in it, to improve a situation that has brought great shame on this country? Perhaps he will reconsider his recent remarks. Surely men can play a tremendous role in the care system, in children's homes, in foster care and in social work with children. We have to get the protection of children in the system right, and we have to ensure that we have the right people in it, rather than making facile judgments based on gender.

Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend may have misheard me. I said that, provided that the men are safe, it is as well to have men around, because they set a proper example to young people of the way in which decent adult males should behave. That certainly applies to boys, and to some extent it may also apply to girls, some of whom may have come from homes in which the adult male has knocked about and battered the women of the household. It is


probably a good idea for children who come from such households to discover that there are men who do not behave like that.

Health Trusts

Mr. David Kidney: How many health trusts have become technically insolvent. [62455]

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): None.

Mr. Kidney: Do I thank my hon. Friend for that answer? He is aware that there are some health trusts, such as the Mid-Staffordshire General Hospitals NHS trust in my constituency, whose finances are sufficiently precarious to need special monitoring by his officials. Does he agree that national health service staff in such trusts work in a dedicated and committed way and yet sometimes feel that the financial position is such that they are working with one hand tied behind their backs? Can he assure us that the monitoring is sufficiently robust to ensure that the full range and quality of services that the local populace, including trust employees, require will be available in those trusts?

Mr. Milburn: Of course staff in organizations that have been landed in debt as a consequence of the policies carried out by the previous Government are at the sharp end of dilemmas. When we came to power, two thirds of health authorities were in debt and the national health service as a whole was in debt to the tune of £450 million, thanks to the lacklustre and reckless performance of the Conservatives. We have halved that debt and are well on target to get the NHS back into financial balance. That is largely a consequence of the record levels of investment that we are now making in the NHS, including the extra £38 million that has gone into the South Staffordshire area.

Miss Julie Kirkbride: I am sure that the Minister is aware that the way he is tackling the funding problem in Worcestershire is to close Kidderminster general hospital and to downgrade the accident and emergency departments at Kidderminster hospital and at the Alexandra hospital, Redditch, to the status of glorified minor injuries units. That is the policy of the Labour Government, whereas, for 18 years under the previous Conservative Administration, those facilities remained open.
The Minister might not be aware that, during the last general election, his hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock) campaigned saying that a Labour Government would keep Kidderminster general hospital open; or that his hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith) campaigned on the basis that the accident and emergency department at Alexandra hospital would not be downgraded. However, both those things have come to pass under a Labour Government who promised to improve our national health service.
All we in north Worcestershire have experienced are cuts. I should be grateful if, instead of conversing with other hon. Members, the Minister answered the real concerns of the people of north Worcestershire who are finding that the Labour Government, who promised to improve the NHS, are cutting it.

Mr. Milburn: The hon. Lady must be the only person in Worcestershire who thinks that Kidderminster general

hospital is closing. It is not closing; it is staying open. Instead of condemning my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest, she would do better to praise him for the conscientious campaign that he has led to ensure that there is a high-quality, modern and dependable emergency centre at the hospital. Its existence is thanks to the decisions that we have taken, which are getting Worcestershire health authority and the good people of Kidderminster out of the mess in which the Conservative Government landed them.

Care Standards

Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: What roles and responsibilities he proposes for regional commissions for care standards. [62457]

Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: What roles and responsibilities he plans to give the regional commissions for care standards. [62458]

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): The current system for checking on children's homes and residential and nursing homes for adults is simply not up to the task. Some places are not regulated at all and there is no check on the standard of care delivered to people in their own homes. The commissions for care standards in each region will change all that. Their job will be to check on every aspect of social care, and to ensure that top-quality services are delivered and that no one is abused, exploited or neglected by the people who are supposed to be looking after them.

Mr. Thomas: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I warmly welcome the commissions on care standards and many of the other measures contained in the White Paper, not least the general social care council and the new national performance framework. Does my right hon. Friend agree that those measures to increase openness and accountability are vital if we are to deliver better services to carers and their families and to the staff who work in those vital services?

Mr. Dobson: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend's point. The system we inherited is a shambles—it does not work. It leaves small children's homes and local authority homes uninspected; and in some cases, it leaves people of extremely dubious background delivering services into the homes of people who are often elderly or disabled. We believe that those arrangements need to be better regulated than they have been in the past, and I am confident that our proposals will do the job.

Mr. Foster: I, too, thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. Will the regulatory arrangements go beyond residential centres, such as nursing homes and children's homes, and extend into the community to cover those services that are carried out in the community?

Mr. Dobson: Yes. As I have already said, we want to make sure that the standard of care delivered in the homes of individuals who are living in their own home is checked on and raised. Organisations such as fostering agencies also need to be checked on. The fact is that nearly everyone who provides social care to people in residential settings, in their own homes or through


agencies does an absolutely first-class job. However, there are some rotten apples in the barrel and we need to sort them out.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: What flash of inspiration led to both the previous questions being identical? Were they planted?

Mr. Dobson: I think they reflect the degree of concern on this side of the House about the appalling state of regulation, which we inherited from the previous Government, governing children's homes, old people's homes and other domiciliary services. I think they also indicate the extent to which my hon. Friends are determined to put the matter right and stick up and speak up for the people whom they were elected to represent. If one or two Opposition Members had been interested, they might have put down similar questions.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will we have to wait until the regional commissions are in place before we are told how mental hostels in places such as Weymouth are to be funded? The Secretary of State will know that, before he moved to the Home Office, his hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) was working to ensure that people with mental illness who did not need medical care could be looked after in the community in the types of hostels that we pioneered in Weymouth decades ago.
We have not received any information about the funding of those hostel—whether it be through housing benefit, the health service or social services. Will the Secretary of State please resolve that difficult problem, which he and his hon. Friends have acknowledged is real, and help the mentally ill whom his White Paper was supposed to assist.

Mr. Dobson: If the hon. Gentleman will provide details of the particular circumstances in Weymouth, I shall do my best to sort them out.

Mr. Bruce: rose—

Mr. Dobson: It is no good the hon. Gentleman jumping up in the Chamber and expecting me to know the details of what is going on in Weymouth. I am very sympathetic to the problem as he has outlined it. I shall look into the matter and try to sort out the problem, if there is one.
Our general position is that we want to improve the system of care and treatment for everyone who is mentally ill across a wide range of circumstances. We are determined to provide that improved care, whether it is delivered in secure units, purpose-built hostels or people's homes. If there are particular problems in Weymouth, I am happy to look into them.

Refugee Doctors

Mr. Mike Gapes: What plans he has to facilitate the employment of refugee doctors.
[62459]

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): We are aware of the difficulties faced by refugee doctors and the problems that they can

encounter when trying to secure appointments in the NHS. Overseas-trained doctors provide an invaluable contribution to the effective operation of the health service. I shall ask the advisory group on medical and dental education, training and staffing to consider the needs of this particular group of overseas doctors and make recommendations as soon as possible.

Mr. Gapes: I am very grateful for that reply. My right hon. Friend is probably aware of the important initiative taken by Redbridge and Waltham Forest health authority in setting up a group for refugee doctors, which includes people from Afghanistan and Somalia. The group comprises top medical specialists who, because of difficulties with regulations and the English language, cannot use their skills at present.
When the advisory group is established, will it liaise with Ministers in the Department for Education and Employment and the Home Office? It has been drawn to my attention that refugee doctors are experiencing difficulties with Home Office requirements and jobseeker's allowance conditions which make it impossible for them to practise their medical skills. Refugee doctors are told that they must work as shelf stackers, for example, when they have particular needs and want to help the communities in which they live.

Mr. Milburn: As my hon. Friend is aware, there are immigration and asylum rules, and it is important that doctors who are refugees to this country abide by them. However, the advisory group will consider a range of factors in making recommendations to me. It is also important to understand not only that concerted national action is needed in this area but that we should seek to build on the very good work that has been undertaken in my hon. Friend's area by the North Thames Deanery, the General Medical Council and local health authorities. They are seeking to provide better training for refugee doctors in order to facilitate their entry into the national health service where that is appropriate.

Mr. John Bercow: How does the Minister intend to meet his targets for the recruitment of qualified doctors for our national health service without being obliged simply to import them, a policy that he will know is vigorously opposed by the British Medical Association?

Mr. Milburn: In a number of ways. First, as was recommended by Sir Colin Campbell's committee, established by the previous Government, we shall increase the number of doctors in training. I can tell the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] If the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) will stop chuntering and start listening, we will make some progress. We are already ahead on the first recommendations of the Medical Workforce Standing Advisory Committee.
Secondly, we shall increase the number of doctors who return to the national health service. Hon. Members will be aware that nowadays many doctors leave the service, for example, to have a family. It is important that we put in place flexible, family-friendly employment policies to recruit those doctors back into the NHS. The Government are taking action on that issue; the previous Government failed to act at all.

Fiona Mactaggart: Is the Minister aware that doctors in oppressive countries very often end up as refugees because they protect the victims of torture and maiming, or that the refugee experience often destroys people's self-esteem? I have in my constituency an Iraqi doctor who was completely convinced that she could not pass the test, although her English was excellent, because her self-esteem had been destroyed by the torture that she had experienced.
If the Home Office delivers on its commitment to speed up asylum decisions, those doctors will be available to work more quickly. Does the Minister accept that it is therefore urgent to develop schemes such as those described by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes), and that we need to get ahead in enabling those doctors to practice while they are in the UK?

Mr. Milburn: I am sure that my hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that refugee doctors who come to this country often face a host of problems. If they are admissible as refugees and if we want them to work in the national health service, it is obviously vital that we provide them with support and training to allow them to provide high-quality services to patients. There is a lot of very good local experience, such as that in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South, and we seek to build on that.

Hospital (Swindon)

Mr. James Gray: What progress is being made on plans for the new hospital in Swindon; and when it will open. [62460]

The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions is currently considering whether the proposals for the hospital should be subject to a public inquiry on planning grounds, and will announce his decision shortly.

Mr. Gray: My constituents in North Wiltshire are very happy that the hospital is moving fast towards opening on its new site at Commonhead, which is so easily accessible from the M4, but are concerned that the considerations by the Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions will delay that. I hope that the Minister will have a word with him to encourage him to make progress as fast as he can. More importantly, will the Minister advise the House as to how many hospitals which are due to open in the near future under the private finance initiative, which her party so strenuously opposed before 1997, were planned under the Conservative Government?

Ms Jowell: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, none of the eight hospitals that are under way were planned under the Conservative Government. They promised a private finance initiative for hospital development, but delivered not one hospital.

Ms Julia Drown: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Ministry of Health has recognised the inadequacies of the Princess Margaret hospital in my constituency and the need to update its buildings for the Swindon population as we look towards the next century?

Will she do everything in her power to ensure that we get the much improved buildings we need as soon as possible?

Ms Jowell: Yes.

Mr. David Heath: Will the new hospital in Swindon provide much-needed neurological beds for the south-west region, especially in light of the experiences of my constituent, Mr. James Payne, who, having suffered a double fracture of the skull, was refused admission to a neurological unit in Taunton or in any of the other regional hospitals purely on the grounds that he was 65 years old, not on the basis of clinical assessment? Can that be right?

Ms Jowell: I am very happy to write to the hon. Gentleman about the distribution of services to the people of Wiltshire.

Infertility Treatment

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: If he will further review the application for infertility treatment by Mrs. X whose name has been provided to him. [62461]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton): I have every sympathy with my hon. Friend's constituent. However, Mrs. X's situation has been fully considered and reviewed by the health authority, and it would not be appropriate for me to comment on or become involved in an individual case.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The health authority is simply wrong. This is one of the most distressing cases that I have had to handle in the 20 years I have been a Member of the House. It involves a jeopardised marriage and an attempt at suicide by Mrs. X some two months ago, all because North Cumbria health authority refused to show any flexibility about the rules. Is it not about time that we introduced new rules to require health authorities to provide this treatment, given that the only justification for not providing it is that a woman's husband had a child by a previous marriage? Surely it is a matter of civil rights.

Mr. Hutton: First, I pay a very warm tribute to my hon. Friend for the energy and commitment with which he has represented his constituent in very difficult circumstances. However, I am sure he is aware that, as we have made clear today and on other occasions, the Government are absolutely committed to ensuring greater national consistency of access to services. He will also be aware that we have commissioned advice from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, and are studying that advice carefully.

Waiting Lists

Mr. Alan Simpson: What the current trend rate is in NHS waiting lists; and what it was in the period up to May 1997. [62462]

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): We have reversed the rising trend in national health service waiting lists which we inherited from the previous Government. In the six months to March 1997, waiting lists rose by an average of 16,000 a month. In the latest six months for which figures are available, waiting lists have fallen by an average of 20,000 a month.

Mr. Simpson: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. It speaks volumes about the difference between this Government and our predecessors, and my right hon. Friend deserves to be congratulated by the House. Will he in turn join me in congratulating Nottingham health authority not only on continuing to meet the guidelines of no one remaining on the waiting list for more than 18 months, but on having in the past six months secured a 16 per cent. reduction in the number of people waiting between 12 and 18 months? Will he put a cherry on that particular cake by saying whether we have any Christmas suggestions as to how health authorities that meet those targets can be helped to maintain them in the year ahead?

Mr. Dobson: I certainly join in congratulating the staff of Nottingham health authority, and everyone else in the NHS, on all their hard work. Certainly, the biggest proportionate fall in waiting lists has been in the Trent region, which includes Nottingham. We will shortly be releasing an additional £32 million to tackle waiting list problems in the winter, and that money is intended to go to those health authorities that have had the greatest success. That, of course, will be followed by 10 times that sum—a further £320 million—to be invested in reducing waiting lists next year.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Given that the Prime Minister answered a question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) two weeks ago about waiting times for out-patient treatment by saying that the explanation was that referrals were increasing, when in fact they were going down; and given that the number of people waiting was going up, while there was a reduction of 37,000 in the number of people being treated, will the Secretary of State confirm that, although the Government have this year presided over a reduction in waiting times for those who have seen their consultants but not yet been treated, there has also been an increase of nearly 200,000 in the number of people who have seen their doctor but are still waiting to see their consultant?
Is not the truth, in the last health questions of 1998, that the Government have not reduced waiting times; they have simply given people in the health service different ways of waiting?

Mr. Dobson: No is the answer to that. Since the Labour Government got in, an additional 300,000 waiting-list cases have been treated compared with the preceding 18 months under the Tories. An additional 300,000 emergency cases have also been treated during that time. The number of out-patients who have been treated has also risen: in the previous quarter, the number was 100,000 more than the number of out-patients treated in the last quarter under the Tories. So work on waiting lists is up by 300,000, work on emergency cases is up by 300,000 and work on out-patients is up by 100,000. How that can be a reduction, God only knows—except he may be a Liberal.

Pensions

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on pensions, changes to which are a part of our modernisation of the welfare state.
All our reforms are driven by the central principle—work for those who can and security for those who cannot. Welfare reform is well under way. We have launched the new deal and announced the single gateway to the benefits system. We are modernising the tax and benefit system to make work pay with a new working families tax credit, underpinned by the national minimum wage.
We have begun to tackle child poverty, with the biggest ever rise in child benefit. We are reforming the Child Support Agency and we have introduced a national child care strategy. We are also reforming the legal aid system and student finance. Over the past few months, I have set out proposals for wide-ranging reforms to disability benefits, along with reforms to modernise bereavement benefits. Today, I set out far-reaching reform to ensure that the pension system meets the needs of the next 50 years.
A pension is the most important asset that people have, more important even than buying a house. That is why we want to put pensions on a sound footing, where every individual is guaranteed a decent income in retirement and where people can rely again on secure and effective private pensions, delivering security for today's pensioners and peace of mind for tomorrow's.
We are already providing security for today's pensioners with value added tax on heating cut to its lowest possible level, a winter fuel bonus, help with bus fares, free eye tests and higher pensions. Under the new Labour Government, Britain's pensioners are £140 a year or more better off, providing real security for today's pensioners. For future pensioners, I am publishing our proposals in a Green Paper, which sets out a new insurance contract between the state and individuals, a new public-private partnership for better pensions. Copies of the Green Paper are available in the Vote Office and a summary of the proposals is being sent to every right hon. and hon. Member this afternoon.
There are three overwhelming reasons to reform pensions. First, if we do nothing, one in three people could, by 2050, retire on income support. Under the current system, people can work hard all their working life and still retire on an income so low that they will depend on benefits for the rest of their life.
Secondly, many middle and higher earners want to save more and should save more, but have lost faith in the pension system because of the scandal of pension, mis-selling. Up to 2.5 million people, including nurses and teachers, may have been sold the wrong pension and have had their peace of mind in retirement shattered. This Government, unlike the previous Government, have not turned a blind eye to their plight. We have already toughened the regulation of personal pensions and taken firm action to ensure that those who lost out receive proper compensation. For those who do not have an occupational scheme, too often there is not a good place for them to put their savings.
Thirdly, the current system gives a poor deal to the millions of mothers and carers who have career breaks and find that they are penalised because of that.
The principles driving our reforms are clear. Everyone who can save for their retirement has a responsibility to do so. In turn, the Government have a responsibility to provide security in retirement for those who cannot save enough. Today, I am announcing a radical new pensions policy. It is radical because it guarantees a decent income for all pensioners. For the first time ever, a lifetime's work will not lead to dependency on means-tested benefits in retirement.
Our reforms create a new insurance contract combining the price-linked basic state pension with a minimum income guarantee that we will aim, in the long run, to increase in line with earnings. It will be a contract that rewards thrift and savings instead of penalising them. It is radical because, for the first time, it helps mothers get a decent pension despite career breaks and because it will, for the first time, give carers a right to a decent pension. It is radical because it replaces SERPS with the new support and a new state second pension to help those on low and middle incomes, and because it builds a completely new private funded pension that is simpler to understand and has lower charges. These proposals will put the trust back into pensions.
We are building a new insurance contract between state and individuals. In the past, the basic state pension has been the sole focus of the Government's deal with pensioners. The basic state pension will remain a universal, contributory, non-means-tested benefit, but the basic state pension alone cannot provide, and has never provided, everyone with a decent income in retirement. This Government will do better.
In future, there will be a new contract. The state will guarantee that everyone who retires in poverty will receive a minimum income guarantee well above the current level of income support—beginning at £75 a week for a single pensioner and £116 a week for a pensioner couple.
The complaint I hear more than any other from the pensioners I meet is that, as the country gets wealthier, they do not share in the gains. That is something that the Government want to remedy. Today, I can announce that it is our intention to give poorest pensioners the chance to share in the rising wealth of the country. Consistent with the proper management of the country's finances, our aim is that, over the long term, the minimum income guarantee should rise in line with earnings. We are also consulting on the best ways of changing the rules so that we reward savings even more.
However, after a lifetime of work, people should not have to rely on the guarantee in retirement. We want to ensure that they can do better than that guarantee. We want to ensure that low earners in work on less than £9,000 and people whose work is interrupted to look after children or sick relatives, as well as moderate and higher earners, have a higher income than the guarantee. So we need to do more.
Low earners in work depend on SERPS for a decent pension, but SERPS is income related. If one earns little, one gets little. The state earnings-related pension scheme does not give sufficient help to low earners. So today I can announce that we will replace SERPS with a new scheme—the new state second pension. It will deliver a


dramatic increase in the value of pensions. The new state second pension will be worth at least double what SERPS currently pays for people earning less than £9,000. Up to 5 million people stand to benefit. Under the current system, a person earning £6,000 a year would get £13 a week from SERPS, but will get £46 a week from the new scheme—£33 a week extra, providing real security for today's low paid.
We also promised in our manifesto that we would do more for people caring for children, or sick or disabled relatives, and for people who have worked, but cannot work now because of disability. So today I can also announce that we will end that unfairness where someone who gives up work to care does not have the chance to build up a second pension. That means that a mother who takes a couple of years off work to look after her two young children will no longer lose out on her pension.
Our reforms will, for the first time, provide security for 2.5 million carers, by helping them with pension contributions—enabling them to build up a second pension as of right. They will be credited into the new state second pension. Parents of nearly 200,000 disabled children, and some 1.5 million people with a long-term disability and interrupted work record, will also gain from that proposal.
The problems of the current system do not affect only those who earn less than £9,000. Too many people earning more than £9,000 get a raw deal, and our plans will change that. Middle earners will get more help, and they and higher earners will have decent products in which they can invest. That is why it is our long-term ambition that everyone earning more than about £9,000 should be in a secure, funded private pension. Stakeholder pensions will be attractive to them because they will be more secure, with independent trustees ensuring that the rights and interests of scheme members are put first.
Stakeholder pensions will be cheaper. On average, personal pension charges can eat up 25 per cent. of savings, whereas we expect stakeholder pensions, with simpler regulation, to result in a substantial reduction in charges. They will be more flexible. If a member—for example, a mother who is at home bringing up children—does not contribute for a period, no charges, which could eat up savings, will be levied. Similarly, those who change jobs will not lose out.
Stakeholder pensions will be higher quality. We shall protect consumers by building quality into the system. We shall also require all stakeholder pension schemes to meet specified standards. They will also be simpler to understand. Pensions are complicated, and private pensions are often a nightmare to understand. We intend that stakeholder pensions will be simpler and more transparent.
Our proposals for stakeholder pension schemes will give up to 5 million people who today are without a second funded pension the chance to build a secure, decent income for their retirement. Everyone earning between £9000 and £18,500 will receive better pension rights.
The Government expect to spend about £500 million annually on increased payments for those who join funded schemes. For many people, that will make joining a new stakeholder pension scheme more attractive. Someone earning £12,000 a year could increase their stakeholder

private pension in retirement by almost £1,000 a year. Moreover, once stakeholder pensions are up and running, we shall reshape the system to make private funded pensions the only sensible option for those earning above £9,000
I strongly believe that those incentives are fairer and more effective than increasing compulsion. I do not think that it is the Government's job to make life harder for people on £12,000, for example, with two children and a mortgage to pay. I want to help middle earners, not penalise them. However, I want them to know exactly where they stand.
I want to provide another type of incentive for people to save. Today, I am able to announce that, for the first time, we shall provide an annual pensions statement for every working person in the United Kingdom. The statements will set out how much private and state pension people are likely to receive on retirement. Everyone will therefore know exactly where they stand. People will also see, in black and white, the consequences of not saving more. We shall work with employers and the pensions industry to make the statement as effective as possible.
Other reform options have been urged on us. Some people have suggested that we introduce compulsion for all now. Some people have suggested privatising the entire system. We closely examined those proposals, and I should like to tell the House why they would not work.
We already compel more than 20 million employees to save. Therefore, the question is whether we should compel them to save even more. The fact is that, for low earners, no amount of extra compulsion will help, because they simply cannot afford the amounts that they would have to save. Therefore, anyone who backs compulsion for all will have to justify such a burden on low earners. I am not willing to do that.
Some groups, such as the self-employed, could afford to save more and are not saving enough, because they are not compelled to do so. We are consulting on letting the self-employed join the new state second pension in return for their contributions. However, we believe that it would not be right to compel them to do so before stakeholder pensions are properly established. Nevertheless, we shall keep under review the case for compulsion once stakeholder schemes have a proven track record, if people fail to save what they need to.
Other people have urged us to privatise the entire system. However, that would be no help for millions of low earners who could not afford to save enough. Privatising the system would cost £150 billion, even after the costs of disruptive changes to the tax system. The previous Government's plans would have meant massive up-front costs, loss of tax relief and abolition of the basic state pension.
Alternatively, some people have urged us to use private schemes that would take money from the private pensions of middle and high earners to give money to the low paid. That is not practical. I also do not believe that it would be acceptable. Our proposals are, by contrast, manageable, affordable and workable.
By extending individual pensions, and by a better combination of the state pension and the minimum income guarantee, we shall provide better pensions and also reduce significantly the share of state spending on pensions in the long run. The overall amount spent on


pensions will go up, but private personal pensions will take an increasing share of spending. The current percentages of 60 per cent. state and 40 per cent. personal provision will, over time, become 40 per cent. state and 60 per cent. personal private provision. The reason that is important is that, as people live longer—often for 30 years after they retire—they create new demands on the welfare state, such as long-term care. We will ensure that our plans mean that we can afford to tackle those charges.
Our radical new contract for pensions will ensure security for those who cannot provide for themselves and encourage those who can save for their retirement to do so. It will lift many more working people, mothers and carers off means-tested benefits. Our plans will help low earners to find security in retirement for the first time. They will give a boost to middle earners with a new, secure private pension and money to invest in it. They will help everyone—no matter what one earns—by providing a better regulated and more secure private personal pension system.
That is good news for today's pensioners, and it is peace of mind for tomorrow's. I commend the proposals to the House.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: The proposals are complex, and it is not possible to go into all of them. However, it is worth dealing with some of the key issues.
The Secretary of State made much of what the Government are doing, but, despite having promised a huge amount over the past 18 months, today he had nothing to say about the myriad and various schemes that already exist—money purchase, final salary, defined contributions, defined benefit, additional voluntary contributions, free-standing AVCs, and so on. That complexity of arrangements continues, but he had nothing to say about it.
I listened to the Secretary of State as he went around the studios over the past four or five days. He was keen to encourage everyone in the belief that occupational pensions were the right thing, if people worked for companies that provided them, but he did not appear to realise the irony of making such a statement when the first thing this Government did on coming to office was to take £5 billion per year out of the schemes through tax.
The Green Paper referred to the state earnings-related pension scheme. There is a great deal that needs some serious explanation from the right hon. Gentleman. In the Green Paper, he refers to a cost of £5 billion, in due course, for his proposals. Perhaps he would clarify that. If he intends to increase the level paid to those on lower incomes, where exactly will he get the money? Will it come from increases in contributions for some, or will it be linked to an increase in tax?
The right hon. Gentleman is vague about the timings. Exactly when will the proposals come through? What does he propose? How does such an increase square with his general pledge, which he has made endlessly—as has the Prime Minister—to reduce the overall cost of welfare?
On the issue of stakeholder pensions, the right hon. Gentleman proposed a new second-tier scheme, latched on to the back of the other schemes. In this particular case, it will carry the stamp of Government approval. Do

the Government intend, in return, to guarantee the outturns of the stakeholder pensions? After all, many people on lower incomes will want to join such a scheme because they have been encouraged to do so by the Government. What will the Government say to them if the scheme falls short when they come to retire?
The right hon. Gentleman had nothing to say about that in his speech. Will he guarantee that the scheme will be better, or as good as, existing schemes, which people might otherwise have joined? If he cannot answer that, will he at least say whether he will guarantee that the pension fund will be no less than the contributions made? The right hon. Gentleman must answer those questions if he intends to encourage people to join such schemes.
I come now to the proposals for carers. Over the past 18 months, we have been keen to raise the problems of carers and to deal not just with their pensions, but with their incomes. Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify what he means by those who have taken some time off work? Is it not the case that about 53 per cent. of carers are full-time carers and have no alternative or part-time income? Does he expect the scheme to extend to them if they have no record of earning? Single-earner couples would be affected, so what does he intend to do about them?
If the right hon. Gentleman does not have clear proposals when it comes to paying for the other parts of the scheme, he should remember that one of our criticisms—and one of our proposals for change at the last election—was that single-earner couples bear a much higher proportion of the tax burden than other taxpayers. If the Secretary of State is not going to deal with that, presumably he will make a statement explaining how he intends to reduce the burden. Otherwise, single-earner couples will be hit disproportionately.
The Secretary of State left out an important point about the basic state pension. He now has an opportunity to clarify the position. Why does he not deal directly with the question of uprating the state pension in line with prices? He has an opportunity to tell us at the Dispatch Box and, after the next general election, that Labour will not do other than uprate the pension in line with prices, which is what used to happen. [Interruption.] Labour Back Benchers are making a noise. What they do not realise is that the Secretary of State talked about linking earnings to income support, not the basic state pension. The minimum guarantee concerns income support.
Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman's proposals to link income support with earnings will mean a massive increase in means-testing at the bottom end? He disguised the fact by pretending otherwise, but that is what will happen.
The Government have asked the public today to trust them on a range of pension issues. They do not, however, bear the public's trust, for a number of reasons. First, they take £5 billion a year from pension funds and pensioners generally, attacking those who have worked and those who have saved. Secondly, they are the Government who, during the last general election and before, allowed Back Benchers to travel around the country raising expectations that they would establish, across the board, a link between earnings and the basic state pension. What they have now done is sneak in a minimum income guarantee that is concerned only with the means-tested system, and will do nothing for existing basic state pensioners.
Today, the Government have missed much of the plot. They have spent 18 months fiddling around, and have produced an expensive partial system that does not deal with the issues. I condemn them for that.

Mr. Darling: If anyone has missed the plot, I do not think that it is me. Having listened to the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), I am not entirely clear whether he is for or against what we propose.
If I were the hon. Gentleman, I would not go on about trust too much. He should remember that 2.5 million people were mis-sold pensions because of what the last Government did. It was the new Labour Government who began to clear up the mess caused by that mis-selling, not only through the action taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell), but through our overhaul of the regulatory system.
The hon. Gentleman referred to means testing. He ought to understand that we are heading for a time when a third of people now working will be on income support, under the policies with which his party left us. It is this Government who, through the proposals that I have set out today, will ensure that people can work for a lifetime, can retire on an income above the level of income support and therefore will not have to rely on means-tested benefits. This Government will ensure that fewer people will have to rely on such benefits. As a result of the last Government's policies, if we did not change the system, many pensioners today and in the future would depend on means-tested benefits—so that was not a very good point, either.
No doubt others will wish to return to the subject of the basic state pension. Let us be clear: in our manifesto, we said that we would increase the basic pension in line with prices. We have kept that promise, and we will keep it. It would, however, cost about £30 billion to increase the pension in line with earnings over the next few years. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green would listen for a moment, he might learn something.
We could raise the basic state pension in line with earnings, but that would not do enough to help the poorest people's incomes to rise above income support levels. At the same time, it would give money to better-off people who do not need it. What I am doing—this brings me to my next point—is using state support to help those on lower earnings to take their incomes above the income support level in the first place.
The hon. Gentleman asked about costs. The amount that the state will spend on pensions over the next 50 years will fall from about 5.4 per cent. of gross domestic product to 4.5 per cent. over that long period. We are using the money available to help those on low earnings far more than in the past because of the changes to the state second pension. The Government have a responsibility to help those who cannot afford to save to have a decent income in retirement without relying on social security benefits. We need to do more to help people get into funded pensions, where, generally speaking, they will be far better off than if they depend on the state alone.
The hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green asked me about SERPS. The cost is about £500 million, not £5 billion. [Interruption.] I can help the hon. Member

for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) by telling him that the £5 billion relates to the next 50 years, so there is something of a difference there.
On the hon. Gentleman's first point—which was a not terribly good one about occupational pensions—if he reads the entire Green Paper, he will see that the Government believe that people should have options and choices, including stakeholder pensions, which fill a gap in current provision; occupational pensions, which some 20 million people already have; and personal private pensions.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman repeatedly asked about a guarantee. Let me make one thing clear. Through strengthened regulation, better options and more help to the low-paid, we are doing far more to ensure that future pensioners can have a secure and decent retirement—something that the previous Government did nothing about in all their 18 years.

Mr. Frank Field: I congratulate the Secretary of State on safely delivering the Green Paper, and on the nature of his statement. I extend those congratulations to his colleagues in the Department. His proposals for carers pensions will also be welcomed in the country. I have two questions. Will the state second pension be funded or unfunded? If it is unfunded, does he recall that the previous Labour Government introduced a non-funded scheme which the Conservative butchered not once but twice? Given those circumstances, what guarantee can we give our constituents that, in 40, 50 or 60 years' time, the pension commitment that he has made today will be delivered?
My second point concerns the numbers on means testing. He said that, without his announcement today, in future about a third of pensioners would end their days on means-tested assistance. What reduction in that proportion will occur because of the Government' s announcement?

Mr. Darling: First, I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his welcome. I should also like to thank the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) for all his work on pension development, which is much appreciated. I am also grateful for what my right hon. Friend said about carers.
My right hon. Friend asked two questions. First, the state second pension is an unfunded, pay-as-you-go scheme. He raised the general prospect of a future Government dismantling it. As I understand it, the present Conservative policy is to move completely to a funded scheme—that is, if the Tories have not abandoned the basic pension-plus that they announced before the election. The state second pension is sensible and workable as well as affordable, and recognises that a funded scheme is not an appropriate option for people on low earnings, because they can never put in enough to get a decent income in retirement. Therefore, the state has to give them money to put into a funded scheme or, alternatively, as my right hon. Friend proposed, the better-off must subsidise the less well-off within a particular pension fund.
We must recognise that a funded scheme is not appropriate for people on low incomes, and that the state has a role to redistribute wealth to ensure that such people get a decent pension in retirement. That is affordable and


workable. If any party proposed as a central manifesto commitment to privatise the system at massive cost—at a time when there will be the most pensioners and the fewest workers to support them—its proposal would be rejected at a general election, just as the Conservative party's proposal was rejected at the previous general election.
My right hon. Friend asked about means-tested benefits. My objective is to ensure that people who work throughout their lives do not retire on means-tested benefits. One can never exclude the possibility that, for one reason or another, people will not hit that target; that is the reason for the minimum income guarantee. However, I believe that lifting as many people as possible off means-tested benefits should be a central objective of Government policy. [Interruption.] I thought that Conservative Members were against means testing, but now they are saying that they are not. I believe that our policies will ensure that we lift people who work throughout their lives off means-tested benefits. That approach should be supported, not criticised.

Mr. Steve Webb: I thank the Secretary of State for his courtesy in making available a copy of the statement to the Opposition earlier this afternoon.
A detailed document such as this Green Paper requires close scrutiny, but Liberal Democrats' initial impression is that it is a small step in the right direction down a very long road. I suppose one could best describe it as the most radical package since the previous one. At the end of the 1970s, we had the state earnings-related pension scheme; at the end of the 1980s, we had personal pensions; and at the end of the 1990s, we have stakeholder pensions. To guarantee that another Secretary of State does not produce another radical package in 10 years, the right hon. Gentleman should secure a cross-party consensus on pensions. Will he work with us and other people of good will to construct such a consensus?
The Secretary of State shied away from making pension contributions compulsory for people on £10,000 to £20,000 a year. He will recall that the Conservatives also tried using incentives, albeit for personal pensions. Of the 5 million people who took out personal pensions, 2 million are no longer putting in a penny of their own money—there is no additional private saving. Why does he think that his proposals will be better? Surely requiring people who can save to save is more effective than crossing one's fingers and hoping that they will.
The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) put his finger on the problem when he mentioned today's working poor. The Secretary of State has said, "Lots of people will get bigger pensions, but no one will get a smaller pension." If the poor are to have more and the rich are to have the same, the money will have to come from tomorrow's taxpayers.
Successive Governments have ripped up pensions promises. The Conservative Government ripped up SERPS, but they were none the less re-elected, so the Secretary of State's belief that such actions will not be electorally popular does not wash—parties do not announce such plans in their manifestos, but carry them out anyway. Promising today's poor money from

tomorrow's taxpayers will not provide a secure basis for pensions policy. I would not want my income in old age to depend on the generosity of tomorrow's taxpayers; I wonder whether the Secretary of State would.
The proposal to link the so-called guarantee to earnings is welcome. The Secretary of State has promised to do that in the long term, but will he do it in the short term? The people who enjoy the guarantee are already 75 or 80, so how long will they have to wait? Will he pledge to implement the proposal immediately? We welcome the guarantee, but he knows that it does not apply to those hundreds of thousands of people who do not claim their entitlement and to those hundreds of thousands of thrifty savers who, with only £8,000 of life savings, are told that they are not entitled to the money. Finally, will the Secretary of State reassure the House that he will not rest on his laurels, but will find more money for today's pensioners, particularly the oldest pensioners?

Mr. Darling: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He mentioned today's pensioners, but I made it clear that the statement and the Green Paper were about pensions in the future. We have always made it clear that the significant increase in help for today's pensioners, which we announced in the comprehensive spending review, was never meant to be the last word on the matter. Today's statement deals with pensions structure and the options that will be open to people in the future.
Having lectured us on the need to be prudent with our money, the hon. Gentleman demanded that we uprate the minimum income guarantee immediately. He cannot have it both ways. We have made it clear that our long-term objective is—consistent with the prudent management of public finances—to uprate the guarantee in line with earnings.
The hon. Gentleman asked about affordability. Being a professor, he is no doubt a clever man. When he gets to the appropriate part of the Green Paper, he will see that the amount of money that the state will spend over the next 50 years as a proportion of gross domestic product will go from 5.4 to 4.5 per cent. of a larger GDP. The amount that we are proposing to spend is affordable, as he will see from the Green Paper. We are ensuring that more help goes to the lower paid, who need it.
The hon. Gentleman made an important point about incentives. I am not sure whether the Liberal Democrats are in favour of compulsion right across the board.

Mr. Webb: indicated assent.

Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman nods, so let us assume that he is. He has thought a lot about those things, and he must face up to the fact that the very poor can be compelled to save every last bean and they will still not have enough for a decent pension. On the other hand, a lot of people are now saving far more than the minimum—especially people at the top end of the income scale—and compelling them to save even more seems perverse.

Mr. David Rendel: indicated dissent.

Mr. Darling: The Liberals do not think that that is perverse. I bet they do not say that at by-elections in some parts of the country.
We propose to give people an annual statement in which they can see where they stand. Most people have no idea what awaits them when they reach pensionable age, and the statement will help. The incentives and additional rebates that people can take into a funded pension will help also.
I made it clear in my statement that, once stakeholder pensions are established, it is my intention to ensure that we amend the system further, so that, if people stay in the state system, they will lose money, and they would be far better off in a funded scheme. That is very important, because I firmly believe that people who can afford to save should save more, and funded schemes will always be better than unfunded schemes. People will be better off as a result.
I believe that the combination of the minimum income guarantee, the new state second pension, the stakeholder pension and the annual statement will do far more than has been the case for the past 25 years to set pensions on a proper footing for the future.
Lastly, I am delighted to work with anyone to form a cross-party consensus. I very much look forward to working with the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) and his colleagues. If they have a constructive suggestion to help us to get a better policy, I will be pleased to receive it from him.

Mr. Malcolm Wicks: I very much welcome that part of my right hon. Friend's statement that dealt with carers. For too long, carers have been patted on the back and then neglected, and it cannot be right that those who provide care for elderly relatives and children with disabilities pay a penalty of poverty in their own old age. Will the Secretary of State say more about the carers pension, which we welcome?
Will the Secretary of State say something about the future of the means test? Am I right in thinking that, if we raise means-tested income support in line with earnings, but the basic pension only in line with prices, the numbers of our elders eligible for the means test will grow in the short term? How will the new SERPS impact on means-testing in future? Does the Secretary of State have a projection of how many people in 20, 30 or 50 years will still be subject to the means test?
I very much welcome the stakeholder pension for those on middle incomes. However, if a funded stakeholder pension is good enough for middle Britain, why is it not good enough for the poor? Should not the taxpayer enable poorer people, through subsidies if necessary, to be included in the new second pension scheme, given that our forefathers and foremothers—Beveridge, Attlee, Castle and Crossman—wanted inclusive and comprehensive pension schemes that helped to integrate society, rather than divisive schemes for special classes of people?

Mr. Darling: I will try to deal with my hon. Friend's complicated questions as quickly as I can. He asked about carers. The carers covered will be those who receive invalid care allowance, those carers of people receiving attendance allowance or disability living allowance who qualify for home responsibilities protection, and child benefit recipients where the youngest child is aged five or under. In addition, there will be help for long-term disabled people with broken work records. Further details are in the Green Paper.
My hon. Friend asked about the state second pension and about means testing. The object of the state second pension is to ensure that, if someone has a lifetime's work, they do not rely on means-tested benefits when they retire. My whole objective is to avoid the situation that currently exists, in which a third of people now working—never mind those who are not working—are heading for a life on income support in retirement. That is not right, and I want to lift those people above that.
That is part of the rationale of replacing SERPS with a state second pension, which, let us remember, gives great help to those on low incomes. It doubles the amount that they will get, because it breaks the tie to earnings whereby someone with low earnings gets low benefits. It is of real help to low earners, many of whom looked to us for help when we were elected. We are providing that help.
I understand where my hon. Friend is coming from on means-tested benefits. There has been an academic debate on the subject for the past 50 years or so. At present, we have a combination of contributory and means-tested benefits, as well as benefits on the basis of need, such as disability allowance. If someone, for whatever reason, has not had the opportunity to build up a contributory right to a pension, means-tested benefits are one way of getting money into the hands of a person who needs it. For the life of me, I cannot see what is wrong with that.
I would rather that people did not have to depend on benefits, and I am taking steps to try to make that less likely, but, if there are poor people, we ought to help them. I have a great deal of difficulty with the idea that it is somehow bad to increase the threshold. If we are helping more poor people—I was under the impression that that was one of the things that we were elected to do—that is no bad thing; but I believe that we should do our best to avoid a situation in which we know that people will end up on means-tested benefits. For that reason, I believe that our proposals are absolutely right and justifiable.

Mr. John Butterfill: It would be churlish not to welcome much of what the Secretary of State announced today—there is considerable consensus on what needs to be done, as is clear in the all-party group on occupational pensions, which I chair—but I am afraid that the scheme is something of a mouse, whereas we were expecting a lion. We thought that he would produce a radical reform, encompassing the whole range of pensions provision, whereas in fact he has only tinkered at the edges once again.
It is clear that not very much thought has gone into how the changes affect the whole population. The Secretary of State said that he would hold consultations about including the self-employed. He has had an awfully long time to consider the matter, so why does he need to consult further? Why cannot he produce a scheme that encompasses the self-employed?
Does the Secretary of State propose to do anything about the problem of annuities? That is the biggest problem confronting people who are retiring now. The value of annuities has dropped by about 30 per cent. in the past 12 months, partly—even considerably—due to the Government's action on advance corporation tax. We can allow people to defer, and some are permitted—

Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members are now making speeches and explaining their own policies.
We must have questions to the Minister. I have the next business to safeguard, and that finishes at 7 o'clock, so, unless hon. Members put questions briskly, there will be very few asked, because I shall close down this period in a couple of minutes. Now, Mr. Butterfill, let us have a question, so that the Minister can answer.

Mr. Butterfill: Does the Secretary of State propose to consult further on allowing people to defer the purchase of annuities or to purchase an alternative investment, when annuity yields are low, and will he reconsider the position of section 226 policyholders?

Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman will read our detailed proposals in the Green Paper. I accept that he has not yet had a chance to look at it. Annuities are low because we are entering a new era of a stable economic environment. We now have low inflation—which is the best news that pensioners could ever have—rather than the rising inflation of the past.
The hon. Gentleman criticises us for holding consultations on whether the self-employed should be allowed to have a state second pension. I believe that people should have the opportunity to be consulted, and I cannot see what is wrong with that. Indeed, I made my position abundantly clear on the matter.
On the hon. Gentleman's general point, I was anxious to build on what we have at present. It is perfectly possible to have a convention of pension rocket scientists and come up with all sorts of exciting and exotic schemes, but I ask myself whether a scheme will work and be manageable and deliver good pensions to people in the future. My proposals will do that; I do not know about his.

Mr. Chris Pond: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the commitment that he has just underlined to seek to provide security in retirement for a majority of future pensioners, without the indignity and stigma of a means test, will be welcomed in my constituency of Gravesham and throughout the country? The policies of the Conservative party would have left millions of people subject to that stigma in retirement. Is he also aware, however, that many pensioners feel that the current system contains a certain unfairness and that, if they have saved a little for their retirement, over time, they are somehow penalised? Will he consider ways in which that unfairness might be addressed in the future?

Mr. Darling: Yes. I have made it clear in my statement and in the Green Paper that the Government want to consider that. It is one of the main, justifiable grouses from pensioners, and we are all aware of it.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: What is the Secretary of State's working assumption of the number of new stakeholder pensions that will be taken out after the scheme is implemented? In 2050, what proportion of people will still be on means-tested support?

Mr. Darling: Some 5 million people could potentially benefit from stakeholder schemes. They are people who can save and do not have the option at the present time. We have made a conservative estimate that, in the first

two or three years, 1 million to 2 million people will join the scheme, but we want to build it up as quickly as possible.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a simpler method? It is a bit old-fashioned, but it would mean that people such as Members of Parliament and those paid more would pay more in taxation so that pensioners could get increases in line with earnings. Notwithstanding that, I appreciate that my right hon. Friend is trying to prevent casualties in the future. Will he remember the casualties of the past? Several hundred sacked miners were prevented from getting their pension entitlements as a result of the 1984–85 strike. We now have a recommendation in a Government report by the coalfield task force. Will my right hon. Friend work with others from the Treasury Bench to try to get the matter resolved as soon as possible?

Mr. Darling: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who highlights an appalling case in which many former miners were the victims of mis-selling as a direct result of the previous Government's actions in the late 1980s. On the subject of the basic state pension—I repeat the point, because it is important—we had a choice. We could have uprated the basic state pension for future pensioners and that would have cost about £30 billion over the period in question. That would not help the poorest pensioners, but would give money to the better off who do not need it.
Instead, we decided that it would be better to use the money that we have at our disposal to benefit low earners to ensure that they retire on a decent income above income support. As a result of the new state second pension, someone earning about £6,000 a year will get £46 a week, instead of £13. That is a big increase. The proposals are a radical departure from what was done in the past, but they are right for the future.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Is not the main problem with the present system that, if one is on a low income, it is not worth one's while to take out a pension, because one loses income support? How will the situation be eased by linking the minimum earnings guarantee to earnings but not the pension? Are not the questions posed by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks) unanswerable? Because the Secretary of State has ducked compulsion for political reasons, the numbers of people on means-tested benefits will increase, not decline, in the years to come.

Mr. Darling: I am surprised that the Conservatives are in favour of blanket compulsion.

Mr. Duncan Smith: No, we are not.

Mr. Darling: Oh, they are not. Is that another split in the Tory ranks? The argument against compulsion is a practical one. If people are on low earnings, it does not matter how much of their disposable income one takes away from them, because they can never earn enough to get a proper pension. Most of those at the other end of the income scale are already saving enough. The self-employed are another matter, but the compulsion argument falls when we consider who would be asked to


pay more. The main problem that low earners face is that they cannot earn enough now to get a pension that would lift them above means testing. The reforms that I am making to the second state pension will enable people to work for their whole lives and get pensions above the minimum income guarantee.
I still believe that, despite those changes, having a minimum income guarantee is wholly justifiable. The logic of the hon. Gentleman's position is that there should be no safety net at all, on the grounds that that would compel people to do more. What I am proposing is practical and workable, and I am more than happy to rest my case on both those assertions.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Does my right hon. Friend recognise the argument that compulsion must be necessary for young people, as it is impossible to convince 20-year-olds that they will ever grow old and need a pension? Although the Government deserve credit for giving £140 a year to people on a basic pension, that amount goes only a small way towards compensating them for the £1,040 that they have lost—that they were cheated out of—when the link between pensions and earnings was broken in 1980.
Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Government's targeting of poor pensioners is wide of the mark, and that 1 million pensioners will miss out on the guaranteed minimum pension because they regard income support as a handout, or charity? They would accept it if it were added to the basic pension as a right, as for 50 working years they have paid contributions that have increased at the rate of inflation. Why should we continue to cheat them by increasing the basic pension at a rate that is below that of inflation?
Many Labour Members are surprised by the faith that my right hon. Friend has shown in the private pension market after years of mis-selling. He said that the charges on the private stakeholder scheme would be below 25 per cent. Will they fall to the level of the national insurance charges on the basic pension, which at present is 2 per cent?

Mr. Darling: I shall deal with the various points raised by my hon. Friend. I think that I am right in saying that he has a hostility towards private funded schemes, which, frankly, I do not share. Over the next 25 years, pensioners as a whole—although not the poorest—are likely to retire on higher incomes, in part because of the growth in occupational pensions, which essentially are private pensions.
It is true that there have been problems with mis-selling, but the industry as a whole sells products that are very good for very many people. However, I believe that people are far better off if they can save through a funded pension than they ever would be if they relied on the state.
My hon. Friend returned to the question of the basic state pension. I shall not labour the point, other than to say yet again that I and my colleagues took the decision that it is far better to use the money at our disposal to help those on lower incomes—some might think disproportionately—to ensure that they have a proper pension on retirement.
My hon. Friend asked what can be done about the 19-year-olds who would rather go out and enjoy themselves than pay money into a pension. If those

19-year-olds earn less than £9,000 a year, compelling them to save quite a lot of money from that income will not make much difference. By the age of 25, those young people may be earning more money and therefore be more amenable to facing up to the future.
However, for the avoidance of doubt, I repeat that hon. Members who believe in blanket compulsion should think about what would happen if such compulsion were applied. It would not help the lowest paid, but would penalise those very well-off people who do not need to save more. It would increase the burden on people who already have enough pressure from children, mortgages and so on and who are not in a position to meet the requirement for extra compulsory help. What I am proposing is workable, affordable and acceptable, and therefore I believe that it will be durable.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I warmly welcome the Government's recognition of the circumstances of carers and of the contribution that they make to society, but is not the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) right to say that people must begin to contribute to pensions virtually as they start work? If that is not to be achieved through compulsion—I sympathise with both sides of the debate on that matter—could not the Secretary of State offer people more flagrant, blatant and obvious fiscal encouragement to save for pensions rather than for, say, a car?

Mr. Darling: I appreciate that hon. Members suffer from a disadvantage in responding to Government statements, and that they are not always able read 100 pages of the relevant Green Paper beforehand. However, if the hon. Gentleman does get the chance to look at it, he will find that it contains incentives to encourage those earning moderate and higher incomes to go into funded pensions. I think that he will welcome the quite substantial rebates that are available.
I shall certainly not hold out the hope of more handouts of money, and it is unusual for Conservatives—or, at least, it used to be—to call for that. It cannot be justified, but increased incentives are available. People who say, "Let's compel 19-year-olds," should first ask themselves how much a 19-year-old has got, how much we could compel them and what difference it would make. A combination of all the measures that we are proposing, not least the annual pension statement, will concentrate minds as has not happened before.

Mr. Michael Clapham: My right hon. Friend will be aware that, at present, about 1 million people are in work and have access to an occupational pension scheme but do not join it. He will also be aware that, in 1988, the Tory Government changed the rules, which was a disaster for occupational pension schemes, as employees were allowed to move away from salary-based to money-purchase schemes, which do not provide a minimum pension. As the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) said, such schemes are linked to an annuity, and go up and down with shares. Therefore, will my right hon. Friend consider how he might encourage those 1 million people back into occupational schemes, perhaps by encouraging employees to return to salary-based schemes?

Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and the Green Paper covers it. He is right to say that the


previous Government allowed people to opt out of pensions and many people have made no provision. In the Green Paper, we are saying that that situation is clearly unsatisfactory. For some people, an occupational scheme may be a bad deal, especially if they will be with a firm for only two or three years, but we are saying that, if they are not in the occupational scheme, they have to have a good reason—in other words, some other pension provision. We do not agree with the idea that people can simply bail out, enjoy themselves and expect others to pick up the pieces. That was one of the many things that the Conservative party did in the 1980s that is deeply regretted.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Clearly, the Green Paper must be read carefully, scrutinised and responded to—hopefully, constructively. I must pursue one matter with the Secretary of State. One concern that has been brought to my attention is that carers who reach pensionable age find that the state pension impacts on other benefits, such as attendance allowance. Will they be considered as special cases? The plans are long-term, but that group of carers has been cruelly treated under the old system.

Mr. Darling: I understand the hon. Lady's point. For carers who were in receipt of invalid care allowance, or who qualified for home responsibilities protection by caring for people on attendance allowance or disability living allowance, there will be qualifying credits back to 1978.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Would the Secretary of State explain why he has linked not the state pension but the minimum income guarantee with average earnings? Is that why he is proposing a reduction in the public contribution—as opposed to individual contributions—to pensions over a 50-year period? Will he estimate how much more money people on low incomes will be paying towards their pensions compared with the amount that they are paying now through national insurance?

Mr. Darling: If my hon. Friend looks at the Green Paper—I appreciate that he has not yet had the opportunity to do so—he will find that we are spending more on pensions, even though the share of national income declines. We have embarked on that course of action rather than restoring the earnings link because I want to ensure that the most help goes to people on lower incomes, rather than spreading the money thinly among everyone, as some people do not need it. I am ready to defend, for as long as it takes, the idea that the Government ought to be in the business of helping those at the lower end of the income scale. That ought to be, and will be, our priority.

Mr. Roy Beggs: I welcome the proposals outlined by the Secretary of State, in that they will encourage those who can help themselves to help themselves further and that help is offered to those who cannot help themselves. I particularly welcome the

support that will be provided for mothers and carers. However, will the Secretary of State comment on what the future holds for widows?

Mr. Darling: We set out our proposal on widows benefits and widows pensions two or three weeks ago, and I am sure that the Vote Office still has a copy. It would take me rather longer than you would allow, Madam Speaker, to run through that matter again. However, I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman, almost alone among Opposition Members, has grasped what the Government are doing.

Ms Gisela Stuart: I welcome the announcement that annual statements will be issued; it is a significant way of preventing the kind of robbery of SERPS that went on for 18 years under the previous Government and that reduced the value of SERPS without any particular outcry. I have two questions, the first of which relates to women and carers. How will my right hon. Friend's announcement affect the group of people who currently claim home care responsibility years? Secondly, are there are any provisions for people who do not have taxable incomes in current years to contribute towards their pensions?

Mr. Darling: The stakeholder pension gives greater flexibility: people will be able to contribute up to £3,600 to a stakeholder pension, and will be able to do so up to five years after stopping work, thus allowing for people who move occupations. For the first time, women carers will have access to a second pension, and I think that many people will welcome that.
My hon. Friend made a point about the annual statement that has not been mentioned this afternoon. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who unfortunately has left the Chamber, spoke of his concerns that a future Government might take away the benefits that we are discussing. One advantage of giving everyone an annual statement is that, if the Conservatives were ever to be re-elected and were to pinch people's pensions, the statements would show a debit. There would be an entry "What the Tories took away", and people would notice that the money had gone. That is another reason for welcoming the statement.

Mr. Julian Brazier: Will not the Secretary of State's decision to focus his resources on those at the bottom end of the spectrum have exactly the same effect on incentives as the mistaken changes made by the Conservative Government in 1988? Specifically, what would he say to those people on small, modest occupational pensions whose funds were raided by the taxman last year and who now find that those just a little below them in terms of income have the prospect of increased pensions?

Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman has missed the point. If he examines the proposals, he will see that the help that we are giving is not only to those on low incomes, but to those on moderate incomes. They will all get help in different ways, because of the way in which we are reforming SERPS and replacing it with the second state pension. He is quite wrong to say that help will go only to the poorest pensioners; that is not the case. The hon. Gentleman does have a point, if I understand him


correctly, when he says that people with modest savings or modest occupational pensions could find that they start to lose benefit. In the Green Paper, we stated that we wanted to address that problem.
On corporation tax, I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Labour Government have cut corporation tax by 2p in the pound, which will increase company profitability. Companies will actually gain from us; therefore, pensions will gain from what we have done.

Mr. John McAllion: My right hon. Friend will know that the guaranteed minimum income is set at a level that will require a pensioner couple to survive on a joint annual income that is significantly less than that of a single person earning the national minimum wage. It is set at an absolutely minimal level. Does he recall the Commission on Social Justice set up by the late John Smith, which recommended that the guaranteed minimum income should be set at a level above income support and that it should be linked to average earnings? Will he tell us why the guaranteed minimum income has not been set at that level; why the link with earnings has been postponed until the longer term; and exactly what he means by the longer term?

Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend should be aware that the increase given to the poorest pensioners through the minimum income guarantee is the largest that there has been. Furthermore, I think that he would accept that we inherited a situation in which, after 18 years, pensions, especially those of the poorest, had been fairly run down. Consistent with our overall responsibility to ensure that the public finances are properly run, we put the available money towards increasing the minimum income guarantee for the poorest pensioners. We took a deliberate decision to do that.
What I am saying—I choose my words carefully, as I do not want to hold out false promises—is that our objective in the long term, consistent with prudent economic management, is to increase the minimum income guarantee in line with earnings, so that we raise the benchmark. We want to beat that benchmark, but it will be raised in such a way that pensioners benefit.
I fully accept that, for today's pensioners, that will take time, but my announcement this afternoon is designed not to deal with the situation for the next five to 10 years, but

for the next 50 years. However, I hope that, by the end of this Parliament, my hon. Friend and everyone else will agree that the Labour Government have done a great deal to help today's pensioners, as well as providing security for tomorrow's pensioners.

Mr. Quentin Davies: Why does the right hon. Gentleman keep evading the means-testing issue? Does he not realise that the great savings tragedy in this country today is that those on average earnings or lower—£15,000 or £18,000 a year—would be completely barmy to save, as they would deprive themselves of thousands of pounds a year in means-tested benefits upon their retirement? Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that, by increasing income support for pensioners at a faster rate than the state retirement pension, he will make the problem worse? He will increase the potential loss for anybody on a modest income who saves, and the income threshold below which it makes no sense to save will continue to increase to higher and higher income levels.

Mr. Darling: I rather suspect that the hon. Gentleman thought up his question several hours ago—certainly before he read our proposals. I make it abundantly clear—the hon. Gentleman seemed to grasp this point earlier—that people who earn as much as £15,000 a year are heading for retirement on income support because of the policies left us by the Tories. For the hon. Gentleman to complain—

Mr. Duncan Smith: You are changing that.

Mr. Darling: Of course we are, because we do not want that to happen. We are reforming the pensions system to ensure that people who have worked all their lives do not have to face retirement on means-tested benefits. That is abundantly clear to everyone. I am sorry that the Conservative party is now committed to abolishing not only the state pension but mean-tested benefits as well. It is only the Conservative party that has absolutely nothing to say about this matter. The Conservatives had 18 years in which to sort out the pensions problem, but they did nothing about it. They simply presided over massive mis-selling and gross irresponsibility. In contrast, our system is affordable, workable, deliverable—and, I believe, durable as well.

Orders of the Day — Greater London Authority Bill

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on amendment to Question [14 December], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Which amendment was, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
this House, while welcoming the proposal for a directly elected mayor for Greater London, declines to give a Second Reading to the Greater London Authority Bill because, instead of creating an Assembly consisting of representatives nominated by each London borough and the Corporation of London, which would best serve London's interests, it provides for the establishment of a directly elected Assembly which would diminish the status of the London boroughs and would be likely to lead to conflict between the boroughs and the Greater London Authority; and because, in failing to provide for the transfer of London Underground to the private sector so as to boost investment and in proposing the imposition of new taxes on motorists in London to pay for cuts in central government spending, the Bill offers an inadequate response to the problems of transport in London."—[Mrs. Shephard.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): Londoners are justly proud of their city. It is our national capital, and one of the foremost cities in the world. It is famed for its diversity and for its financial and business might. It is a cultural magnet for the rest of Europe and well beyond. London's history, museums, monuments and restaurants draw visitors in their millions.
Yet, in spite of all those strengths, London's governance is a mess. Difficult decisions are not taken and no one is able to provide Londonwide solutions to Londonwide problems such as pollution, poverty and the crumbling transport infrastructure. Uniquely among major cities, London has no leader. How is our capital supposed to continue to compete with New York, Paris and Tokyo when it has no one to speak for it?
Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister spelled out the overall case for the creation of a mayor and an assembly for Greater London. Today, I want to concentrate on parts VI and VII of the Bill, which make relatively minor changes to the London fire and emergency planning authority and very significant changes to the accountability of the Metropolitan police.
I shall deal first with the fire authority. Our proposals in part VII for setting up the London fire and emergency planning authority recognise that the present authority is already a strategic and representative body for the whole of London and that the present arrangements work well, so our changes here are relatively prosaic. The new authority will be a reconstituted form of the present authority and will inherit its staff, functions and powers. However, it will have a smaller membership of 17—just over half the existing number. The majority of members will be assembly representatives appointed by the mayor. The rest will be representatives of the London boroughs. Like all fire authorities, it will remain democratically

accountable to local people. The proposed arrangements will provide streamlined decision making and will establish a clear relationship between the mayor, the assembly and the authority.
Part VI is concerned with the Metropolitan police, who are also covered by clauses 80 and 81 on finance and schedules 16 and 17. The Metropolitan police authority will be the first police authority for London to be democratically accountable to Londoners. That step is long overdue. It is right in principle, and it should improve the way in which we tackle crime and disorder in the capital.
Before justifying those statements, I shall describe some of the key staging posts in the history of the Metropolitan police. Sir Robert Peel was the architect of the Metropolitan Police Act 1829 which established the force. That Act made provision for two justices with powers to direct and control the force, under the authority of the Home Secretary. Two justices—or commissioners, as they were soon to be called—were duly appointed: Charles Rowan and Richard Mayne, who worked in tandem for the next 21 years. Even today, the offices of Metropolitan Police Commissioner and deputy Commissioner are civilian posts. Only in the force's post-war history has the Commissioner been a police officer.
I was looking at the portraits in New Scotland Yard and reminding myself that the Commissioner appointed in 1945 had been the permanent under-secretary in the Home Office immediately beforehand. He was wedged into a uniform and put in charge of the Metropolitan police.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Typical Labour fix.

Mr. Straw: I suspect that it was a Conservative fix, or a coalition fix. The tradition before that had been that Commissioners and deputy Commissioners were appointed from the armed forces, and it is only since the war that police officers have run the force at Commissioner level, but they are still considered to be civilians. That is one of many anomalies that the Bill will sweep away.
When Peel proposed an organised police force for London, many people objected, as they had done for decades. In 1785, just three years after the post of Home Secretary was established, such was the opposition to a London police force that William Pitt had been obliged to drop a Bill similar to that passed in 1829. Between those dates, some minor advances were made. The Middlesex Justices Act 1792 provided for seven mini police forces, each under a magistrates office, to add to the existing Bow street office. In 1800, the Thames river police brought a further dimension to the capital's policing.
Those were ad hoc changes. There was still no unified, organised police force. Numerous parliamentary committees, including an 1822 Select Committee, rejected the idea of such a force, despite huge panic across the country about the mob behaviour and disorder that followed the end of the Napoleonic wars in 1815. It was argued left and right that any benefits that might accrue from an organised police force would be outweighed by the loss of individual liberty.
Robert Peel was eventually able to secure his vision of a professional London police force. His determination was quickly rewarded. The doubts of the previous decades


evaporated as the advantages of the 1829 Act became apparent. David Thomson vividly describes the events in his book on "England in the Nineteenth Century", in which he says:
By establishing very early contact with disorder rather than waiting until it had grown too great to be quelled without bloodshed; by preventing mobs from forming rather than trying to disperse them after they had formed; by creating a spirit of civilian co-operation with the public in the common cause of good order; above all by making the detection and punishment of offenders more inevitable and certain, Peel's police conferred an immense boon on the whole country.
London's model was soon being exported elsewhere.

Mr. David Wilshire: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I am very supportive of the Metropolitan police, but he has twice referred to them as London's police force. Will he confirm that they never have been London's police force; they cover an area that includes my constituency and others that are not in London, have never been in London and whose people do not wish to be in London?

Mr. Straw: I understand that. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will approve of the fact that, following representations from him, his colleagues and Surrey county council, I have accepted that the boundaries of the new Metropolitan police force ought to be coterminous with those of the Greater London area.
As I was saying, London's model of policing was soon exported elsewhere, first to the boroughs of England by the Municipal Corporations Act 1835 and then to the rural areas by the County Police Act 1839. One notable difference was that the authority to which the police forces outside London were responsible was not the Home Secretary. In the case of the boroughs, it was to a watch committee whose members, until the Police Act 1964, were drawn entirely from the elected members of the municipal council, and elsewhere magistrates in the quarter sessions were empowered to set up a police force and to appoint constables.
Here began a divergence which has persisted to this day. Legislation has modified and updated the police authority structure outside London, while leaving the position of the Home Secretary as the police authority for London untouched. Why should this be so?
Back in 1829, there was considerable fragmentation in the government of London. I have already mentioned the fragmented policing arrangements, but local administration lay in the hands of 150 separate parishes, which were plainly in no position to oversee the activities of a single police force. It says something for the remarkable foresight of Peel that he was able to draw the boundaries of the Metropolitan police force wider even than those drawn in 1963 for the Greater London area, boundaries that we are now accepting. It was said that he drew the boundaries according to the distance that the Commissioner could travel on a horse in a single day.
The establishment of the London county council by the Local Government Act 1888 presented an opportunity for change. Some parliamentarians argued that the London county council should become the police authority. Indeed, Mr. Pickersgill, the Member of Parliament for Bethnal Green, S. W., observed:
The second point, perhaps, which would attract the attention of the Metropolitan critic was this, that whilst the Metropolitan ratepayers were to provide for the cost of the police they were to have no control over them."—[Official Report, 13 April 1888; Vol. 324, c. 1255.]

That argument was hard to refute, but it did not win the day. The view was then taken that, because of the unique national and, indeed, imperial functions of the Met, the Home Secretary should remain the police authority. It should also be pointed out that the old LCC covered a much smaller area than the Metropolitan police district—poor alignment of boundaries is not just a modern curse.
The status quo again prevailed in 1962, when the royal commission on the police reported. It argued successfully that the forthcoming London Government Act 1963, which created the Greater London council, should not be used to change the Home Secretary's position. As a result, the Police Act 1964 left arrangements in London as they were.
Next came my own modest contribution to the debate about the policing of London. One of my first actions on entering the House in 1979 was to introduce a private Member's Bill—the Police Authorities (Powers) Bill—in which I proposed, among other things, a police authority for London. Once that Bill had died the usual early death suffered by such Bills, I resurrected my proposals early the next year in the 1980 Police Bill. What I said is something to which I still hold:
I believe that experience has shown that in the Metropolitan area there is … insufficient accountability … through local representatives. That can be remedied only by having a Greater London police force responsible to a local and democratically elected police authority."—[Official Report, 11 March 1980; Vol. 980, c. 1156.]
There is one more chapter to record. On 23 March 1993, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), a former Home Secretary, told the House that the Government's police reform programme would include the creation of a new police authority for the Metropolitan police in line with the new national pattern. However, while the new national pattern duly emerged in the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994, it was not applied to the Metropolitan police area, because the new Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), had decided against the policy of his predecessor—not for the first or, indeed, the last time, either on police or many other issues.
I have run through this history because I think that it is important, when making a significant change of the kind now proposed, to understand how things came to be as they are; only then can we be sure whether the change is justified. On this occasion, I believe that the case for change is overwhelming. Moreover, I believe that, once the Metropolitan police authority is established, it will gain acceptance as rapidly as the idea of an organised police force did at the beginning of the previous century.
Let me explain why. First, there are grounds of principle. I quoted earlier a concern about the absence of accountability for the policing of London. As Home Secretary, I am an elected Member, but I am not elected by Londoners. I may claim—indeed, I do claim—many things for the outstanding town and borough of Blackburn, but not even I would dare to suggest that being the Member for that constituency is the best qualification for being London's police authority.
That point does not apply just to me. One has to go back about a quarter of a century to find the last Home Secretary representing a London constituency—Mr. Robert Carr, as he then was, who represented Mitcham and was in my post from 1972 to 1974. Policing


has its roots in local communities. It follows that the police authority should have representatives from those communities. In London, that is not the case.
The Metropolitan police authority will address that accountability gap, and so will the provisions to alter the outer boundaries of the Metropolitan police district. For historical reasons that we have already discussed, those boundaries extend beyond the 32 London boroughs to parts of Essex, Hertfordshire and about a third of the administrative county of Surrey. In some parts of Surrey and Essex, the boundaries of the Metropolitan police service go slap bang through the middle of existing districts, which makes any effective partnership between the police and those districts more difficult, whatever the strength of will of police commanders and chief executives.

Mr. Wilshire: I ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept my thanks for the way in which he has handled that issue. It is a difficult matter for those of us outside Greater London. I hope that he will allow me to put it on the record that I support what he is suggesting for my constituency.
Is he aware that there has been close co-operation between the Metropolitan police and Surrey police and that the changes that he seeks to achieve are working well, but that, as I am sure he will understand, because he kindly saw me, his proposals will not work if there is not adequate finance? I am sure that he is aware that it is not his responsibility, but another Department's, but he will have a problem achieving what he seeks to achieve unless adequate money is available.
The sum of £7 million has been offered to Surrey, but the minimum cost of what the right hon. Gentleman seeks to achieve is £10 million. Will he use his best endeavours, as I seek to do, to get the financing sorted out, so that what he seeks to achieve and what my constituents support will be forthcoming?

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his thanks, which I know is full-hearted. I do not wish to be ungrateful, but I was anticipating that there was going to be a "but" in what he said. Indeed there was, and the "but" was about the money; not a great deal changes in terms of the role of Opposition, whoever fill that role.
There have been detailed discussions with Surrey. Indeed, I have made myself available to any right hon. and hon. Member and to district councillors to talk about the matter, as well as to county councillors. Each authority put forward bids for the transitional costs, and we looked at them. It will come as no surprise—it is also a timeless verity—to learn that our judgment about the amount needed for the transfer was less than the bid, but I still think that £7 million is adequate for the purpose. Of course, if the chief constable or the hon. Gentleman wishes to argue about it, I am happy to see them and to discuss that further.
Under the new arrangements, we shall at long last have police forces that fit within the administrative areas of county councils or metropolitan areas. That is to general benefit, and it is consistent with our overall approach of aligning criminal justice agency boundaries to improve the working relationships between those agencies and district councils.
I want to highlight my personal concerns about having to combine the position of Home Secretary with that of the police authority for the metropolitan area. There is, frankly, insufficient time to give the role of police authority the attention that it deserves. That view is shared by some former Home Secretaries of both parties to whom I have spoken.
Even more importantly, conflicts of interest can arise from having to act with both my Home Secretary and police authority hats on. The carefully designed system of checks and balances provided by the tripartite system for running the police service—the chief constable, the police authority and the Home Secretary—generally works well, and we are not proposing to disturb it. However, I believe that the system is bound to become confused when one person fulfils two roles.
One change that my immediate predecessor, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe, did make was to establish a Metropolitan Police Committee, an appointed body, to advise the Home Secretary on his role as police authority. I have been greatly assisted by that committee—for example, in the establishing of priorities for policing and in the approval of an annual performance plan. I should like to place on record my thanks to its members, and particularly to Sir John Quinton, its chairman.
Earlier this year, I decided to expand the committee by adding 10 new councillor members, nominated by the London Government Association. Despite all that, the essential fact remains that the Home Secretary's role as police authority is an inherently unsatisfactory one.
Opponents of change may argue that the Met is unique, and that that alone justifies a special degree of central Government oversight. Particular consideration in the past has been given to the national and international functions of the Met. Those national roles remain today, although they are not as widespread as they once were. The creation of separate national bodies, such as the National Crime Squad and the National Criminal Intelligence Service, is evidence of the changes that have been occurring.
The Home Secretary has a particular responsibility to Parliament for the exercise of national police functions. I have always accepted that the arrangements for London's policing must be tailored accordingly. The Bill achieves that. It does so, first, by providing for an agreement between the Home Secretary and the new authority through which the latter undertakes to ensure that the Met performs its national functions to an acceptable standard. Secondly, the Bill proposes to allow the Home Secretary to appoint directly one of the seven independent members of the authority with that person having a particular interest in the Met's national functions.
Those provisions, along with the other powers conferred on the Home Secretary under the Police Act 1996, provide adequate safeguards without the loss of accountability. Hon. Members who have read the Bill will notice that we have preserved the special position of the Commissioner and the deputy Commissioner. Those posts will continue to be royal appointments. The Secretary of State will have to approve a shortlist of candidates, and the mayor will have the chance to offer a view about the list, but the MPA will choose a single candidate for consideration by the Secretary of State and for approval by Her Majesty.
The size of the Met has also been cited as a reason why it might be too dangerous to loosen the grip of central Government. That, too, is less of an issue today. When the royal commission reported in 1962, there were 156 police forces outside London. Most of them had fewer than 1,000 officers in their force and many had fewer than 500. One Shetland force had just 18 officers, but many of the borough forces had fewer than 200. The largest single force was Lancashire, with just over 3,000. That contrasted with the 20,000-strong force in the Metropolitan area. Today, following the reorganisations that took place in the 1960s, all but one of the 41 forces outside London have over 1,000 police officers; 13 have over 3,000; and two—the West Midlands and Greater Manchester—are over a quarter of the size of the Met.
The police authority model set up under the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994 has shown itself able to cope with those larger forces. I do not believe that the size of the Met will present insuperable problems. The new MPA will have 23 members, rather than the normal 17 elsewhere, and this should prove sufficient to discharge its functions.
Perhaps the final argument against the creation of the MPA is that it may bring no tangible benefits to Londoners. Well, I would certainly accept that, in the great majority of what it does, the Met performs very well. The latest recorded crime statistics bear testimony to that and we all need to remember it. The figures show that crime in the Met continues to fall. Overall crime is down 8 per cent., burglary is down 16 per cent., robbery is down 19 per cent., vehicle crime is down by 11 per cent., and violence against the person is down 5 per cent. Operations such as Bumblebee and Eagle Eye have demonstrated the Met's ability to get to grips with serious crime problems. Home Office research has shown that London continues to enjoy one of the lowest homicide rates in Europe or north America. London's homicide rate is three times lower than that of Amsterdam, and eight times lower than that of New York city.
I applaud, too, many of the more recent developments in the Met, not least developments on the very important issues of how police deal with racial and violent crime. The House will understand that I cannot comment on the proceedings of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry. However, I can say how much I welcome both the commitment of the Commissioner and his senior management team to building a truly anti-racist service, and the appointment of assistant Commissioner John Grieve to lead the racial and violent crime task force.
The Commissioner also has my support for his strategy of moving to borough-based policing and putting the emphasis of policing where it belongs—at the local level. It is important to have effective structures in place also above the borough level, and the Commissioner is considering that point, in consultation with interested parties and his criminal justice parties. He favours reducing the current number of areas from five to three, possibly with an intermediate tier comprising three or four borough command units grouped together under one commander.
I congratulate the Met on what it has achieved and is attempting to achieve. I believe also that more could be done if the service's accountability to the population it serves was more deeply rooted in the community it serves.
The Government's overall approach to tackling crime and disorder is based on partnership and community involvement. Giving local people and relevant organisations a say in how the community is policed unquestionably bring results. Loss of community support and involvement is a very difficult obstacle to overcome.
The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and our proposals on best value are two examples of our approach of rooting policing in the local community. The 1998 Act places a statutory duty on local authorities and the police service, in conjunction with other bodies, to conduct a thorough audit of local crime and disorder problems by consulting widely in the community, to propose a strategy for dealing with those problems and to audit the strategies' effect. The Metropolitan police authority will be subject to the Act's consultation requirements, and will therefore be able to play its full part in the crime and disorder partnerships—which will be strengthened by coterminosity, at borough level, of police and local government boundaries.
The authority will be subject also to the best value duty that we are proposing to place on all police authorities under the provisions of the Local Government (Best Value and Capping) Bill.

Mr. Eric Forth: I am, as ever, reluctant to strike any negative or sour note. However, I point out to the Home Secretary that there is a distinct possibility that Chislehurst police station in my constituency will close very soon. I am told by the assistant Commissioner that police may be forced directly by the Home Secretary's budget allocations to close that police station. Against the background of the Home Secretary's comments in this debate—on community involvement, strengthening police effectiveness and so on—will he tell me how I should explain to the people of Chislehurst that closing their police station will make policing in their community more effective?

Mr. Straw: I should expect nothing else but for the right hon. Gentleman to strike a discordant note—he did so with his own Front Benchers when they were in government, and he does so now. The first thing that I should expect him to say to his electors is that the current year's police budget and last year's, for 1997–98, were based on the budget set by the previous Administration—[Interruption.] It is no good Opposition Members groaning about it; it is true. The only change that I made to the Metropolitan police service was to give it a little more money than it anticipated receiving from my predecessor as Home Secretary. That is the truth of it.
As for this year's settlement, the precept for London has not yet been set. I therefore have no idea how the police service in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) can be speculating about the effects of budget changes that have been not been established. It is a fair settlement.
The other thing that the right hon. Gentleman should point out to his constituents is that the police settlement for London, and for all the United Kingdom, is far in excess of anything that would have been provided by a Government whom he would have supported. Of that there is absolutely no doubt. We know it to be the case, because the shadow Chancellor has damned our spending plans, including those for the police—not because we are spending too little, but because we are spending too much.
The right hon. Gentleman should tell the people of Chislehurst that his shadow Chancellor said that our spending plans are reckless. Had the right hon. Gentleman's party been in power, it would not just have been the closure of Chislehurst police station, but the police service generally would have been denuded across London and throughout the country. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention; it has made me feel a lot better.

Sir Paul Beresford: A calming question. The Home Secretary mentioned the precept. As I understand it, the inner-London magistrates courts probation services are covered by the precept, so there are numerous questions about what will happen under the Bill, as it makes no mention of them.

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman need not worry; we intend to deal with that—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Ah."] This Bill is about changing the way that the police service is funded and controlled. We have other proposals for the future of the probation service—as the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) will know, because he pays assiduous attention to these matters—which were included in a consultative document that I published in the summer, on 8 August. We are proposing changes in the way that that service operates in London. I made it clear that we are minded to move from five separate probation services to a single service to cover the Greater London area. It would therefore be coterminous with a court service, the Crown Prosecution Service and the MPA.
Other hon. Members wish to speak in the debate—

Sir Paul Beresford: rose—

Mr. Straw: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.
I want to say something about the relationship between the GLA and the MPA. The existence of a mayor and an assembly adds a dimension to the policing of London which is not present elsewhere. We have modelled the MPA's membership and functions on those of police authorities outside London, and have remained faithful to the tripartite structure. However, it is also right that the MPA should reflect the existence of this pan-London structure of assembly. After all, it was the absence of a Londonwide local government body in 1829 that contributed to the otherwise anomalous policing arrangements we see in London today.
The mayor will be involved through his or her appointment of 12 assembly members, including the deputy mayor, to the police authority. He or she will also be able to make representations on the list of candidates put forward for the office of the Metropolitan Commissioner. Equally importantly, as two high-profile London figures, the mayor and Commissioner will want to establish an effective working relationship. As for the assembly, it will provide a majority of the MPA membership. It will also be required to hold meetings at which it can put questions to the MPA about the discharge of its functions.
Jointly, the mayor and the assembly will set the budget of the MPA as part of the single financial structure created by the Bill. However, to ensure that the policing of London is not put at risk, the Home Secretary will have the explicit power—a wider power than that which exists in the Police Acts—to set a minimum budget, sufficient to provide an efficient and effective police force.
In summary, there will be two bodies—the GLA and the MPA—working together. The two bodies will be accountable to the people of London, and will deliver benefits on their behalf. The new arrangements should mean improved policing on the streets. By harnessing the views and ideas of local people, and working with Londoners to reduce crime, they should contribute to creating a safer and more secure environment for the people of London. I commend the Bill.

Sir Norman Fowler: One of the interesting sub-plots of this debate so far has been the parade of potential candidates for mayor of London—a parade in which the Home Secretary and I are non-marchers.
In yesterday's debate, the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) said:
I also hope that I can look forward to seeing the Deputy Prime Minister campaign at my side in my struggle to become the Labour party candidate.
I am not very good at judging body language, but the way that the Deputy Prime Minister went a dangerous colour of beetroot red and muttered audibly, "I'll campaign for the Labour party candidate," did not automatically lead us to the conclusion that the prospect filled him with enormous enthusiasm.

Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick: I do not have the same recollection of what happened last night. The Deputy Prime Minister's response was that he would campaign for the Labour candidate who would be the next mayor of London.

Sir Norman Fowler: The hon. Gentleman ought to concentrate. That is exactly what I said.
Next, we had the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who said:
I make it clear that I have a further interest in that I intend in the new year to put my name forward for selection, and possibly therefore election, to the Greater London authority.
Asked in what capacity, the hon. Gentleman replied:
That is not a matter for today."—[Official Report, 14 December 1998; Vol. 322 c.647, 651.]
I did not see the Deputy Prime Minister's reaction, but, as he winces every time the question of closer links between the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats is raised, I would guess that he is not greatly in favour of that solution either.
The third potential candidate is still to come. According to Michael White in The Guardian, the Minister for London and Construction, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), has emerged as a "late runner for mayor". Mr. White also comments—quite unfairly—
critics say the balding and bespectacled 53 year old lacks the charisma to be Mr. London".


We all agree that that is unfair. Mr. White concedes, however, that the hon. Gentleman is
very voter friendly on the doorstep".
We look forward to the hon. Gentleman's campaign speech.
There is a serious point to be made about the selection of candidates for mayor, and, indeed, for the assembly. In October 1997, the Government Office for London—that is, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions—asked Professor Dunleavy and Dr. Margetts to examine some of the issues involved in the election of the London mayor. One of their recommendations was central to this debate. They said:
The responses of political parties to the new voting systems will greatly affect the legitimacy of the systems with the public. There is a case for Government intervention to guarantee the use of one member one vote procedures in the selection of party candidates".
Conservative Members would have no difficulty with that proposal; nor, I think, would the Liberal Democrats. The system proposed by the Government, however, seems so designed to prevent the candidacy of the hon. Member for Brent, East that he has warned the Prime Minister that he will organise an American-style write-in campaign if the party hierarchy in the capital keeps his name off the short list. As for the system that I think the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) was defending, the hon. Member for Brent, East has said—this did not strike me as a complete endorsement of his policy, although he may think differently—
They have ignored the mandate of their own membership. I hope no one is going to need hospitalisation. One was aware at the weekend of bone-crunching pressures being applied to people".
I feel that, to put it at its mildest, the Labour party still has some way to go to meet the spirit of the report that the Government themselves commissioned. Doubtless, when he sums up the debate, the Minister will wish to emphasise his determination that a "one member, one vote" system should obtain, so that obvious candidates are not excluded from the selection. [Interruption.] I am an enthusiastic friend of my noble Friend Lord Archer, and it would be quite improper to say that he is here.
Two important points arise from the Home Secretary's speech. One relates to the policing of London. The right hon. Gentleman went into the history of the Metropolitan police in some detail, and he was right to do so. The force was first organised in 1829, which is a tribute to Robert Peel. The Home Secretary should also have told us:
At the beginning of the eighteenth century, the very word 'police' was virtually unknown in England; a position which led one French visitor to complain: 'How can one expect order among these people who have not such a word as police in their language?'
All that is set out in an excellent book that I wrote on the history of the police.
The Home Secretary proposes that he should cease to be the police authority for the Metropolitan police and that he should be replaced by a new police authority that would include 12 assembly members. So about half the assembly members will sit on the police authority.
As the Home Secretary said, in 1993 my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) expressed some reservations about that proposal when he said:
It is not proposed that there should be a police authority in the same way as for other forces because of the special national interest in the work of the Metropolitan police.

I shall not repeat the arguments, as the Home Secretary knows them well.
We shall consider the proposal in depth in Committee, so I shall concentrate on one or two fundamental issues that surround the change. The first question should be: what do the public want of their police? Of course they want a force that is close to them and good relations to exist between police and public—that is, with all groups in the population. Good community relations always have been an integral part of policing.
In terms of international comparisons, no one can seriously accuse the Metropolitan police of falling down on that duty. Of course there are exceptions where cases have been handled badly and individuals have been unfairly treated, but in my view they are very much the exception. In other police forces around the world and certainly in Europe, the Metropolitan police is held up as an example of a force with good public relations.
The Home Secretary is always rather churlish about my books—

Mr. Straw: I have not read that one.

Sir Norman Fowler: Then there is a treat in store for him. In one, I compared the British police—particularly the Metropolitan police—with police forces in other European countries.

Mr. Straw: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Norman Fowler: Let me finish citing the example.
The result was that the London police were seen as the model of how a police force should be organised. That is not by any means a case for being complacent, but it serves to put the issue in some context.
As well as good relations, the public want effective policing. They want crimes investigated, crime prevention undertaken and burglars, robbers and muggers detected and convicted. The Home Secretary is the police authority for just one force—the Metropolitan police—but what happens in that force has a pervasive effect on every police force in the country. The advantage of having the Home Secretary as police authority is that there is no one else to blame when the objectives of tackling crime are not achieved. The buck stops with him.
Irrespective of whether or not we have a new police authority, the financial levers of power remain with the Home Secretary. Of course they are crucial in achieving an effective police service. That is not the case in other countries.
In New York, which has roughly the same population as London, a proactive policing policy has reduced crime dramatically—in the past four years, it has fallen by 40 per cent. A few weeks ago, I visited the New York police, and, while I was in the city, the New York Times carried a survey showing that 60 per cent. of the public believed that life in the city had improved thanks almost exclusively to more effective policing.
In the past five years, the incidence of crime in London has also fallen. The Metropolitan police and, indeed, the Home Secretary's predecessor deserve credit for that. What is fundamentally different between the two cities is that, as a prelude to New York's attack on crime, the


mayor ordered the recruitment of 7,000 more police officers. Without that, it would have been impossible to implement the so-called zero tolerance policy.
In London, the contrast could not have been greater. The strength of the Metropolitan police has increased since 1979, when the force numbered 22,000; when the Conservative Government left office, it numbered 26,700. However, numbers are now falling. Indeed, many people predict that, over the next three years, the numbers in the Metropolitan police could fall to 24,000, 23,000 or even 22,000, which was the number in 1979.
We listened with some care to what the Home Secretary said about finances. In fact, between 1979 and 1997, resources for the police service increased by more than 70 per cent. in real terms; as my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) said, that was what made the growth of the police service possible. Now, however, although there is an increase in cash terms, there is no real increase whatever.
Despite the fact that there will be a new police authority, responsibility for what happens in London will continue to rest heavily with the Home Office and the Home Secretary. In Committee, we shall have to consider carefully what improvement the change will make. The acid test will be what best serves the public interest. We are prepared to suspend judgment on that, but we reserve the right to reconsider the matter.
On constitutional change—

Mr. Wilshire: Before my right hon. Friend moves on from the police, will he assure me that, when he seeks the support of Conservative Members for the changes that he wants to make to the Bill, he will not ask us to oppose the proposals to make the Metropolitan police boundary the same as that for Greater London?

Sir Norman Fowler: I give my hon. Friend a categorical undertaking on that.
On constitutional change, the position is much clearer. Neither the Deputy Prime Minister nor the Home Secretary seems to have examined the subject in much detail. One of the main themes in the debate about London has been the make-up of the new assembly, and the role of the new mayor. Labour Members have suggested that our proposal for an assembly made up of borough leaders is unworkable. It is odd that, when we consider the make-up of a new second Chamber—the Chamber to replace the House of Lords—one of the favourite proposals is that a substantial number of its members should come from the regional assemblies. On 12 December, The Herald of Glasgow reported that the Lord Chancellor had said:
The Scottish Parliament could be given the task of electing Scottish members of the reformed House of Lords".
The argument is that such a system would provide a form of unity and avoid the creation of unconnected layer after unconnected layer of government. It is the same argument that my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) advanced yesterday.

Mr. Straw: I had the experience—I make this point in the most non-partisan way I can—of serving on the old

Inner London education authority, which was partly made up in the way that the right hon. Gentleman proposes: it comprised the Greater London members for the inner London boroughs, plus one borough representative from each of the 12 boroughs.
ILEA was set up by the London Government Act 1963, and both major parties tried to make it work. However, as a borough representative, I thought that the system was inherently unsatisfactory; we were not clear to whom we were accountable. The same would be true even if borough leaders were put on a Greater London authority. The right hon. Gentleman's proposals would not create a sense of unity; the experiences of people of both parties who served on ILEA suggest that the new body should be directly elected.

Sir Norman Fowler: I hear what the Home Secretary says, but I do not agree. The Government's approach illustrates one of the difficulties inherent in the debate; their plans for constitutional change are not joined up. Different electoral systems and different kinds of constituencies are proposed—party lists are taking the place of named-candidate lists in some elections, and there are enormous gaps in the constitutional plan. For example, no one knows how the second Chamber will be constituted—for the very good reason that the Government do not know. We heard vague words yesterday about regional assemblies but, in practice, we know that the only change outside London will be the introduction of unelected regional development agencies. On the basis of the Bill, our proposals for London seem to be looking stronger and stronger by the minute.
For the assembly, according to the White Paper, the Government are working on the premise that
assembly members will be required to think and act strategically, looking at London-wide issues in the round and at the long-term interests of the capital. They do not nor should they duplicate the local representational roles of borough councillors, MPs and MEPs.
Let us be clear—we can now eliminate Members of the European Parliament from that list. No one pretends that the party list system that the Government have chosen for the European elections will provide truly local representation at that level. The loyalty of the Member of the European Parliament will be to the party, not to the local public. That is the basic argument that we have made, and will continue to make.

The Minister for London and Construction (Mr. Nick Raynsford): Before the right hon. Gentleman digs himself further into a hole, will he reflect on the views of the London boroughs? Is he aware that the Association of London Government has stated clearly that it does not share the Opposition's view that the assembly should be made up of London borough leaders? The chairman of the ALG has said that the role of the assembly should not be confused with the local role of London borough councillors. Is not that a clear example of what London boroughs think? Will the right hon. Gentleman realise that he is wrong?

Sir Norman Fowler: No, I will not. The Minister is always guided by such representational views. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] In an Evening Standard survey of the boroughs to which he referred, only five of the 19 Labour council leaders gave their enthusiastic backing to the Prime Minister's idea. Four refused to comment, or said


that they had not made up their minds. Ten were against the proposals. That was in 1997. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) will deal with parts of the letter to which the Minister referred.
I wish that the Minister would deal with the argument, and not for ever seek to quote people as if that settled the matter. It does not. The argument is flawed in the first place. Duplication takes place only if functions are duplicated; that must be the case, surely. The Government, however, say that that is not the case, and that functions are different. Why have the Government adopted different systems in Scotland and Wales? In Scotland and Wales, those who represent assembly constituencies will be the same as those representing parliamentary constituencies. Why are not the Government adopting that system for the elected assembly for London?

Mr. Raynsford: I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that we have adopted exactly the same electoral system in London as in Scotland and Wales—the additional member system, with some members elected for constituencies and some from a party list. Clearly, the right hon. Gentleman is not terribly well versed in those constitutional matters, which are all completely consistent.

Sir Norman Fowler: The Minister has a great future as an estate agent, having given such an answer. He knows perfectly well that I was talking about the constituencies—the coterminosity of Members to constituencies.
I am delighted to respond to the other point, about the electoral system. My basic fear is that, when the Government talk about thinking and acting strategically, that means that the assembly will be remote from the public whom it intends to serve. That danger would be averted if our proposal were adopted.
The Government propose 25 assembly members, 14 of whom will be elected by first past the post. They will represent not areas that are coterminous with parliamentary constituencies, but massive constituencies with between 300,000 and 400,000 voters. That makes the assembly far more remote than Parliament or a local council.
The second eleven will be elected on a Londonwide basis, not by first past the post but through a form of proportional representation. They will be elected from a party list. Just when we thought it was safe to come out of the shelter, the Government are set for a new battle on the open and closed lists. The proposed system is precisely the same as the system for the European elections. That is why the Home Secretary did not refer to it.
Generally, the public will vote not for a named candidate but for a party. They can vote for named independent candidates but not named party candidates. The party will choose the order in which candidates will be elected, and the public will have no choice. For example, the Labour party organisation might put the name Raynsford at No. 1 and, with luck, the name Livingstone at No. 11; and party members might put the name Livingstone at No. 1 and, with luck, the name Raynsford at No. 11; but what is certain under the proposals is that the one group that will have no say in the order will be the electors themselves. They will not be able to re-order the party candidates.
Once again, we have all the other drawbacks of the party list. If a candidate fails in his constituency bid because of his unpopularity with the public, he can always get on the party list. Under the list system, there will be nothing as inconvenient as by-elections to replace someone who resigns or dies: the next man or woman on the list will simply be appointed. That is what the Government propose.
Again, we are witnessing a transfer of power from the public to the party organisation. The only change is that the arrangement has now been condemned by at least two reports. It was certainly condemned by the Jenkins commission on electoral reform, which has published its report since the White Paper was issued. The report said:
The Commission recommends that the second vote determining the allocation of Top-up members should allow the voter the choice of either a vote for the party or for an individual candidate from the lists put forward by parties. They should therefore be what are commonly called open rather than closed lists.

Mr. Straw: Is the right hon. Gentleman defending Jenkins?

Sir Norman Fowler: If the right hon. Gentleman wants to destroy Jenkins, I would certainly join him.

Mr. Straw: I was merely asking whether the Conservative party was now moving from outright opposition to Jenkins to Jenkins a la carte.

Sir Norman Fowler: We have made our proposals. I was seeking to demonstrate—I did so conclusively, I believe—how inconsistent the Government are. They set up the Jenkins commission, and when it reports they propose a different system.
I know that the Home Secretary has a hang-up about Roy Jenkins and all that, but Jenkins was not the only one to oppose the closed list. The Scottish Affairs Select Committee, in its report only a few weeks ago on what it descriptively calls
the operation of multi-layer democracy",
said:
We feel that an open list would be more in keeping with the principle of trusting the people and giving them the maximum choice.
It seems to me that the practical effect of what is happening is that, step by step, the Government are giving more and more power to the political organisations and less and less to the public. By one measure after another, the whole focus is beginning to change. Elected representatives will be answerable to the party bosses much more directly than they will be to the local public.
We do not support closed lists. The case against them has been stated thus:
Where PR is based on the list system, with votes effectively cast for a party, and the winning candidates taken, pro rata, from each party's list, power passes from the individual constituency party to those who draw up the list.
Those are not my words, but those of the current Home Secretary in an article in The Times in September 1985. [Interruption.] If the Home Secretary does not listen, he will miss the quotations.
The analogy with Northern Ireland has always been a bogus one, because the Government know that that system was introduced to meet the special needs of Northern


Ireland, as specifically explained by the then Prime Minister. The debate on the European parliamentary elections showed that there is little support in the House for closed lists, and I can tell the Government that we will oppose that proposal with all our strength.
Who will benefit from the new system? The answer was given by the Home Secretary in his 1985 article. It is a marvellous article and includes the following comment on Hitler:
He rose to power in the Weimar Republic, which used a very respectable system of PR. I do not suggest that any other system would have prevented his rise. I do assert that PR did not prevent it—yet moderation and stability is the large, and wild, claim made for this system by our own centre parties.
On the subject of the beneficiaries of PR, he said:
PR is not a matter of morality, but crude party advantage—which is why the Liberals only adopted the idea in 1922, when their decline really began.
For once, we can all—well, perhaps not all—agree with the Home Secretary.
To be fair, it is not only the Liberal Democrats who stand to benefit. On the basis of the 1998 London borough election results, it is estimated that the system proposed by the prospective candidate for mayor, the Minister for London and Construction, would give the Labour party 11 seats, the Conservatives nine seats and the Liberal Democrats five seats, although they would have won no constituency seats. That underlines the crucial importance of the Lib-Lab pact in local government.
We do not believe that the Government have made their case for their approach to the elected assembly for London. The structure is different from the model used in Scotland and Wales. It will remove powers from the boroughs and create a body that is remote from the public it serves. Above all, by using the closed-list system, the Government will transfer power from the public to the party organisation. We oppose that, and we believe that many Labour Members oppose it. It is one of the reasons why we will vote for our reasoned amendment tonight.

Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick: I am conscious of the limited time available for Back Benchers to contribute to the debate, and I will try to keep my remarks as brief as possible. I wish to raise several issues, including three on which I would like the Minister to comment when he responds to the debate. The first is on the London development partnership and the business case for London; the second is on the Metropolitan police service; and the third is on the London fire brigade.
The London development partnership is the shadow organisation for the development agency. There is a solid business case for additional river crossings in east London. Given that a decision on any such crossings will be delayed until the mayor and the assembly are in place, will my hon. Friend the Minister for London and Construction say whether the LDP will undertake the appropriate background, assessment and research work necessary before a decision is taken? If so, it will mean that the time between now and May 2000 is not wasted. In recent years, there have been extensive consultations about river crossings, and the package put together by the Government office for London over the past couple of years seemed to receive overwhelming support.
In addition, does my hon. Friend believe that the LDP in its present form is adequately resourced to undertake that background research in the period before the mayor and the assembly are in place? The chief executive, Eric Sorenson, is highly respected and leads a prestigious board. Its members would be more than able to get on with the job, but I should be interested to hear from the Minister whether they would require additional resources.
I turn now to the Metropolitan police service. Does the formula for funding that service take adequate account of the non-metropolitan or non-London tasks that the service performs, such as guarding embassies and providing diplomatic protection? Is the funding formula due for review? Will my hon. Friend say whether it is possible that the mayor might believe that additional resources would be appropriate in due course?
I am a member of the police parliamentary scheme, and over the past seven or eight months I have heard consistent resentment from police officers about the way in which the press have portrayed the statement from Sir Paul Condon, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, to the Home Affairs Select Committee. Asked to estimate the number of corrupt officers in the Metropolitan police, the commissioner said that there were certainly fewer than 1 per cent. The tabloid press did some arithmetical calculations and said that that meant that there were about 300 corrupt police officers in the Metropolitan police.
No doubt there is some corruption in the force: no police service can avoid that. However, I agree with other hon. Members that the vast majority of officers in the Metropolitan police are committed and dedicated professionals. They go about their duties selflessly, sometimes sacrificing their lives to protect the capital and its residents. No police service is without flaws, and the inquiry into the death of Stephen Lawrence has raised some serious questions. However, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, the Commissioner and his senior officers are committed to tackling the problem.
I join my right hon. Friend in welcoming the Commissioner's plans to move to borough-wide policing from next year. I commiserate with those chief superintendents who failed to win appointment as police supremos for their boroughs, and congratulate those who were successful, especially Chief Superintendents McPherson and Boylan, who in due course will be the officers in charge of Tower Hamlets and Newham respectively. Both officers are very professional, and will give great leadership to the police service in east London, which area will be better protected as a result.
My concern about the funding of the Metropolitan police is genuine and shared by many, and in the same way the funding of the fire service is causing consternation across London. This year's possible reduction in the number of appliances is the result of a national problem and has to do with the structure of the fire service pension fund. I know that the Home Office is studying the matter to work out a solution for firefighters' pensions in the medium and long term, but the immediate pressure on fire service budgets exerted by the requirement to pay pensions will not go away.
Contrary to what the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) has said, pressure on the fire service pension budget is so extreme simply because of life expectancy. For 30 years, firefighters expected to die soon


after retirement. As a result of the shorter working week—now 42 hours—health and safety legislation and, most critically, the arrival of breathing apparatus, they now have a normal life expectancy. Whether they have retired after 30 or 55 years, or on a medical pension because of ill health, retired firefighters in the capital outnumber the firefighters who are employed and contributing to the pension scheme. That pressure on the fire service budget will intensify in the years to come.
Recently, the hon. Member for Billericay wrote to Graham Noakes, chairman of the Essex fire brigade committee, saying:
All Britain's fire services are far too overstaffed. It is one of the last dinosaur industries clinging to feather bedding, using shroud waving and blackmail to prevent the modernisation of the service.
The Algarve is stuffed with healthy young British males, living comfortably, their incomes supplemented by disablement pensions from the fire service.
That is a not uncharacteristically inflammatory comment—if hon. Members will excuse the pun—from the hon. Lady. I have a brother who lives in the Algarve and, were it "stuffed" with medically retired firefighters, I am sure that he might have mentioned it to me in the past 15 years.
As I have explained, the pensions bill is so great because firefighters are living longer, although that is not to say that there is not some abuse and that some people do not receive pensions fraudulently. However, the checks and balances in pension legislation are such that the chances of doing so are remote.
In conclusion, as we heard last night and again today, Londoners overwhelmingly welcome the arrival, and the return, of strategic government for London. Most right hon. and hon. Members recognise that east London will be the engine room for this world-class capital, taking it into the next millennium with the channel tunnel rail link, Canary wharf, the Jubilee line extension, the dome, the City airport and developments in Tower Hamlets, Newham, Barking and Havering. East London will be the engine that will ensure that the capital makes progress. The return of strategic government for London will only assist that progress, and Labour Members overwhelmingly welcome the Bill that the Government have produced.

Mr. Peter Brooke: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick), which is one of the Tower Hamlets seats. One of my Liberal ancestors, my great-uncle, was the Liberal Member for a Tower Hamlets seat before the Liberals entered the decline to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) referred—before proportional representation. I therefore feel a sense of vicarious association with the hon. Member, and will seek to match him for brevity.
As we enjoy the second day of debate on what the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Ms Perham) accurately described yesterday as the greatest city in the world, I am conscious that the powers that be which look after us in this Chamber have given the debate a law and order slant. I hope that the House will forgive me if I defer my remarks on that subject until a later stage of the Bill.
The Home Secretary is unconsciously in my debt and, being absent, will continue to be unconscious, for had I risen to speak at 11.50 pm last night, when the Minister

for Transport in London sat down, I would still have been speaking at midnight, and hence would have continued to speak today, perhaps even until 7 pm; so the right hon. Gentleman would have been delayed.
The police changes have long been foreshadowed, which certainly increases their acceptability. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield on his admirable dissection of the proposals in the Bill. It was one of the paradoxes of yesterday that almost every Labour Member ritually mourned the passing of the Greater London council in 1986, but went on to imply that they mourned the fact of its death, not the substance or condition of the GLC when it died, and thus would not want to restore it to life. It occurs to a bystander that my noble friend Baroness Thatcher may have done the Labour party a favour not merely by giving it a grudge that it could nurse for a dozen years, but by wiping the slate clean so that it could start again with London government.
I mentioned almost every speech made by a Labour Member, but one exception was that of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), in whose welfare I take a keen personal interest. Were he to be taken from us to be mayor, the Northern Ireland Select Committee would lose a valuable and relevant colleague. Perhaps not unexpectedly, he found plenty of good things to say about the GLC. As one element in the GLC's disappearance was the local government challenge to central Government that he set up, I was less surprised than some by the rich list of examples in the Bill in which the Secretary of State is given powers to override the mayor, even if that turns devolution into a Lewis Carroll concept.
However, in Brent, East, whatever other Labour Members think, the leopard has clearly not lost his spots, and tax raising, health authority and higher education powers in the Bill were all required or requested by the hon. Member for Brent, East. He also wanted the mayor to take over the appeal role from the Secretary of State on borough planning decisions. Far from the replication of the GLC, the hon. Gentleman seeks its massive expansion.
This is not the moment to stir the dying embers of old controversies, but beyond the pride in the Inner London education authority expressed by the hon. Member for Brent, East, I think that London students today would thank him more if polytechnics had been allowed to borrow to create student hostels in the capital, and had not been prevented from doing so because rents could not be a penny higher than the existing rents. Any parent who has had to fund students in private accommodation would have settled for the half loaf of a new ILEA hostel, even if the rents had been marginally higher. Moreover, I doubt that the London Institute would have been able to recreate itself so smoothly, on a much more compact campus, in the way that King's college has done during the past decade, if ILEA rules and regulations had still applied. There are dividends that can come from freedom.
At the higher and more elevated level of constitutional reform, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield implied, the Bill sadly joins the queue of piecemeal and inconsistent ventures that the Government have promoted. I read somewhere that the Prime Minister is not interested in the detail, but for that the rest of us will have to pay.
There was an illuminating exchange yesterday, during the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley)—whom I,


perhaps uniquely, can see in the Chamber—between my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who leads for the Liberal Democrats on the Bill. They spoke about legislating for London first, before issues such as English regional government, let alone a parliament for England, have been sorted out.
Mutatis mutandis: as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield said, it is the House of Lords all over again. If the Government go further with such legislation for England, what happens now in London will be a rock in the road around which we shall have to navigate. Labour Members take pleasure in the concept of joined-up government, but on the constitution they are more into painting by numbers.
Just as the events on Clapham common caught the Government by surprise, despite the fact that the Clapham omnibus passes the common as a matter of course, and caused them practical embarrassment in the run-up to the Welsh Assembly, so a tremendous punt, in these arrangements, is being taken on the quality of the first mayor. Those whom the Government would like to undertake the role are proving remarkably reluctant. It reminds me of the election for the mayor of New York, when John Lindsay stood as the liberal candidate and Bill Buckley stood as a Republican in protest. When, on the eve of poll, Buckley was asked what his first reaction would be if he were elected, he said that he would immediately ask for a recount.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) said yesterday that the mayor of London would clearly be a very special woman or man. However, given the powers that she or he will be given by the Bill, I have to ask, what if, by accident, she or he is not? It might be left to my party to solve the Government's dilemma by winning the election.
The Standing Committee on the Bill will get down to discussion of the list system. Yesterday, it was a joy to hear the Liberal Democrats eulogise lists: closed lists, open lists, laundry lists, civil lists, uncivil lists, Beachcomber's list of the Huntingdonshire cabmen. All those lists have their merits and Liberal Democrats can find arguments for any of them, but patently, any list will do. Incidentally, I have not investigated what happens if someone on the list, who is elected, wishes to cross the floor. I assume that he or she has to surrender his or her seat. It sounds like a Whips' paradise.
The functions of the Greater London assembly will also be discussed in Committee. I acknowledge that transport is genuinely a strategic issue, although, as the Government go on and on about integrated transport, I cannot help recalling the old Department of Transport joke that an integrated transport strategy is any transport policy other than the one that the Government have been pursuing up to that moment. However, I have noticed that the Bill would make the Greater London authority both the traffic and the highway authority for the new strategic London road network, and that Transport for London might well become the traffic authority for all roads with signals, which would massively remove traffic control from the boroughs. All that sounds much more executive than a strategic authority was expected to be.
I genuinely salute the proposals for a London air quality strategy. Acid rain does not stop at national boundaries, nor does pollution stop at borough ones.
However, on waste, when the Minister winds up I shall be interested to hear how cost control, practicability and environmental benefit will be required, given the mayor's unfettered powers over recycling. At first blush, the Bill seems like an opportunity for environmental postures without responsibility for the practical consequences.
I am also curious about what the culture, media and sports strategy will make of broadcasting. Overall, that strategic initiative seems to be a makeweight thrown into the Bill to enlarge its strategic compass.
While on the subject of curiosity, I did not detect in the winding-up remarks of the Minister for Transport in London yesterday an answer to the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) about why the calculations made at the London School of Economics of the costs that would fall on Londoners from the Bill were much higher than those made by the Government, and why the Government believed that my constituents at the LSE were wrong.
Finally, as we are on short commons today, I want to raise in brief outline some issues on the planning powers in the Bill, which are less naturally strategic than the transport issues. I shall not argue a detailed case, because a whole speech could be devoted to them, but I want to illustrate the problem statistically. The Government office for London's consultation document on planning applications of strategic importance was published in August. Four categories of development were outlined and criteria recommended for identification as strategic. Fulfilling any of those criteria triggers the consultation of the mayor.
The Government office for London states that, by the criterion of floor space, between 100 and 300 planning applications per year would be considered strategic—that is 0.5 per cent. of all the planning applications in the capital. That percentage sounds a little precise against the numerical bracket of 100 to 300 for strategic applications, but that is less important than the fact that those applications tend to be concentrated in central London, which would elevate the percentage arithmetically. Of the 100 to 300 applications, 59 were awarded planning permission in the City of London in 1997; of those, more than a quarter exceeded the Government office for London floor space criterion, and four of them were more than twice the criterion; but on analysis, none of the 59 schemes raised any strategic issues by virtue of their size alone.
Similarly, on height, where the criterion threshold is 50 m, the London planning advisory committee's draft advice on high buildings and strategic views in London recognised that the established scale of development in the City meant that additional buildings exceeding 50 m would not always raise issues of strategic importance. The City of London already contains more than 50 buildings that are more than 50 m above ground level, 17 exceeding 80 m and eight that are more than 100 m tall. The International Financial Centre, otherwise known as the NatWest tower, stands 185 m above ground level. The height threshold in the City appears to be worthy of further consideration.
The City's competitiveness depends on decision making not being unduly bogged down. The City corporation organised a consultation meeting with the business community to consider the Government office for London's proposals. The overwhelming view of the meeting was that the proposals were unsatisfactory.
Much was made in yesterday's debate of the unanimity of opinion throughout London about the attractiveness of what the Bill envisages, including for the business community. Such unanimity always makes me apprehensive that the world is missing something. Therefore, I am, by instinct, reassured from the City business community's reactions that all is not wholly well.

6 pm

Ms Joan Ryan: As the Member of Parliament representing London's most northerly constituency, I obviously have an interest in the Greater London Authority Bill. However, I am conscious that the legislation is not just about London and Londoners. Perhaps that is because I was not born and brought up in London. I am in London through no accident of birth: I choose to live here. I chose to come to London 18 years ago and I have stayed. I think it is a magnificent city.
However, I am conscious that London is a capital city, and therefore belongs to all the citizens of the United Kingdom. We have a responsibility to them: they want to visit a clean, well run city of which they can feel proud. Tourism is very important to London and its economy. In turn, the London economy has an important effect on the whole United Kingdom economy. So we must also view our responsibility for London in terms of its role as a capital city and its significance to the whole country.
My constituents, like many others in London constituencies, have suffered from the lack of co-ordination of key London services and functions, and will benefit greatly from the reforms that the Bill proposes. I congratulate the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and his colleagues on many aspects of the Bill. I shall concentrate briefly on three major areas of responsibility for the Greater London assembly and its directly elected mayor: economic development, the environment and the policing of London.
I think it important to consider the reality of London's economy. It is one of the dominant capital cities of the world and, historically, has depended on its ability to trade and create wealth. As we have heard, however, 13 of Britain's most deprived local authorities are located in London. We have extremes in London. Unemployment in the capital is greater than the totals for Scotland and Wales combined. London businesses are crying out for skilled workers who cannot be found. Effective measures to address those problems should have been taken over the past decade, and probably before then, too. Those issues should have been dealt with years ago, but we had to wait until 1 May 1997 to see any solutions advanced.
Enfield, North is perhaps a good example—if "good" is the right word—of how London has suffered from the lack of any co-ordinated strategy. The responses to the consultation exercise illustrate what most Londoners, and certainly most London businesses, already know: there is a desperate need for a body with a strategic role in economic development, regeneration and tourism.
In a sense, London has become many cities. Each borough competes with its neighbours to provide often isolated facilities in order to attract enterprise and employment, or works with its immediate neighbours while competing with other bits of London. I do not single out those boroughs and their efforts for criticism—what else can they do? They cannot ignore the needs of their populations. However, I point a finger at the Conservative party for its negligence in government.
In yesterday's debate, we heard nothing but carping from Conservative Members as the Government strive to overcome their legacy and their neglect. Each borough needs—and plainly requests—a strategic body to maximise the benefits of investment in London, its facilities, opportunities and its work force. The Greater London authority will deliver that body. The mayor will draw up London's economic development strategy with the London development agency, which will be responsible for implementing that strategy. That is a clear and straightforward process, which will free London's businesses and allow them to devote their energies to ensuring that their businesses succeed. It will help to attract sustainable long-term investment projects, which I believe are frequently deterred by the frustrations of the current system.
In my constituency—an area that once thrived, with household-name manufacturing industries—there are earnest efforts to create new business opportunities. They are necessary because of the collapse of the industries that made Enfield the place it is today. However, those efforts are undermined because Enfield is competing for investment not only with other European cities, the far east or America but with other London boroughs. Enfield is part of London, and Enfield and London will benefit from the focus and coherence that the Greater London authority and the mayor will bring to London's economic development.
While economic development is certainly a major concern, there is more to London than that. The Bill recognises that fact and sets out wide-ranging proposals to improve quality of life in the capital. London's environment must be considered positively. My constituency, which borders the northern fringes of the capital, is home to sights of great beauty and interest. It was good enough to serve as a retreat for royal persons in centuries past, and now provides a haven of recreation for the people of Enfield and from across north London. The protection and promotion of London's natural habitats, assessment of the state of London's environment, the management and recycling of waste generated in greater London and air quality management strategies will bring to London the benefits of improved health and a better quality of life. Our nation's capital deserves those improvements.
The policing of London is an issue raised constantly by constituents, and is a major concern. Through the Bill, our Metropolitan police force will become more accountable and much more in touch with the population that it serves. I understand that tourism in the capital creates unique problems, but the basis of an efficient and respected police service is a relationship of trust between the police and the communities in which they operate. I believe that the Bill will strengthen that relationship.
I was surprised to hear the comments of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler): one would think that the Bill was an attack upon the Metropolitan police. They do not view it as such. It is not an attack, but a step forward in the relationship between London's police force and the people of London. That can only be a good thing. Such a move is long overdue and much needed, and I think it will be very welcome.
It is remarkable to hear Opposition Members—particularly Conservative Members for London constituencies—attacking the Bill's proposals. Londoners have told them at every opportunity, "This is what we


want." They voted for it in the Government's manifesto at the general election and in the London referendum—an overwhelming result, with more than 70 per cent. of Londoners voting for the Bill.
I am delighted that my Government have listened to Londoners, and have set about delivering for them with vigour, enthusiasm and commitment. Whatever the Conservatives might think, the Bill has achieved something very important: it has united Londoners in a positive proposal for the city's future. It is important to note that the interest that we have witnessed in the mayor for London and the GLA will help to reconnect Londoners to the democratic process and perhaps assist in reversing the worrying trend of low turnouts in local elections.
I welcome the Bill and look forward to seeing it become a reality that will improve life for all Londoners; it will certainly have a very beneficial impact beyond the boundaries of London.

Mr. Tom Brake: I thank the Home Secretary, who is no longer in his place, for giving me such an interesting history lesson about the Metropolitan police.
I shall concentrate on two aspects of the Bill—policing and transport. I welcome the establishment of the Metropolitan police authority and the fact that a majority of its members will be assembly members. I hope that the authority's democratic oversight of, and input to, the Metropolitan police will reduce the occurrence of serious miscarriages of justice such as the case of my constituent, former Police Constable Gordon Warren, who was thrown out of the Met on bogus medical grounds and offered a paltry sum to compensate him for his pain and suffering. He received no protection from senior Met officers.
Although I welcome the establishment of the authority, I regret the absence of tax-varying powers for Londoners, which means that they will not be able to decide whether they want more or fewer police officers patrolling the streets. London streets have a small police presence compared to cities in other European countries.
I am reluctant to bore the House with statistics, but I am sure that hon. Members will find figures for London more relevant than the rather misleading national figures quoted by the Minister for Transport in London in last night's debate. The need for further funding is more apparent than ever. Despite an increase in the special grant to the Met, the overall increase in its allocation for 1999–2000 was only 1.7 per cent., which is below inflation and below the national average increase of 2.7 per cent.
The position is even worse if one considers the 4 per cent. pay rise for the Met, because staff costs account for 80 per cent. of expenditure. The police estimate that an increase of 6 per cent. per annum is required if they are to stand still in real terms. All that is taking place in the context of a drop of 1,500 in the number of police officers since 1992. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) did not refer to that fact in his contribution, in which he gave figures from 1979.
Although Liberal Democrat Members welcome the birth of the Metropolitan police authority, we believe that the mayor should be given the power to raise more funds, if that is what Londoners want, to improve London's policing.
All hon. Members would, I am sure, agree that Londoners will judge the success of the mayor, the Greater London authority and the new citywide government on their ability to deliver a radically improved transport system. That has been severely hampered in a number of respects. In yesterday's debate, much was said about the proportion that the Secretary of State and the Consolidated Fund will take from the proceeds of congestion charging or parking levies.
I shall not dwell on schedules 13 and 14, because I am sure that, by now, most hon. Members know them by heart, but it is worth quoting from "Breaking the Logjam". Page 13 of the document refers to powers
to require a proportion of the revenue to be paid to central government",
and page 16 says that local authorities that introduce charging schemes
should be able to retain 100 per cent. of the net revenue generated for at least 10 years".
We have been told that London will have a citywide government, so perhaps it is outside the scope of a measure that applies to local authorities.

The Minister for Transport in London (Ms Glenda Jackson): Let me set the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest. As I said in yesterday's debate, the mayor and the assembly will be required to spend every penny raised on the mayor's integrated transport strategy.

Mr. Brake: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. She has made that point several times. It is a pity that so much confusion has arisen between documents issued by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Bill. Why are the Government committed to using 100 per cent. of that revenue for the transport strategy for only 10 years, and not longer? They could clear up the confusion by amending schedules 13 and 14. The project of the mayor and the GLA will not survive if, as I said yesterday, revenue from congestion charging that is raised in London boroughs—for example, in Chelsea or Cheam—is spent elsewhere in the country.
The Government must also reassure Londoners on the question of the public-private partnership. Yesterday, some hon. Members had difficulty describing PPP. The Minister must answer key questions. First, a figure of £7 billion is being quoted ad nauseam, but what is the cost of the PPP over the duration of the contracts? It is not £7 billion. Will the Minister confirm that, over the 20 or 30 years of the contracts, the cost may be about £500 million per annum, so Londoners will have to pay back much more than £7 billion?
What percentage of that amount will be paid by Londoners? That question was asked yesterday, but it needs to be considered again. Liberal Democrat Members are still uncertain about the funds that the new transport authority for London will receive from the Government towards its investment costs in years to come and what it will be expected to pay for from the revenue on congestion charging and parking levies. I hope that the Minister will answer that today or in writing at a later date. We need to know whether the Government, as the AA has said, are simply substituting new money for old.
What powers will the mayor have to amend the contracts? We accept that the final details of the PPP contracts need to be agreed, but will the Minister consider


having a review two years after they have been signed, so that the mayor and the GLA can negotiate, on the fringes or perhaps more radically, with the infrastructure provider about what the company will provide? They could then have some influence over the running of the tube.
Londoners are expecting the mayor and the GLA to get rid of cattle truck conditions on the tube. If simple answers can be given to those simple questions, that will go a long way to reassuring Londoners that the PPP is on track, that they will not have to pay through the nose for it, and that the GLA will be able to fine-tune or enhance the deal in years to come.

Ms Jackson: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made abundantly clear yesterday, the public-private partnership will be completed by the Government. It entails a process of competitive bidding by those who want to win the contracts. My right hon. Friend also said that, if completion of the PPP was later than the introduction of the mayor and the assembly, the mayor would be consulted. The contracts will be long-term, and will clearly have to contain checks and balances to ensure that they are being delivered at the price agreed. As my right hon. Friend made clear, decisions will be based on best value. I hope that that clarifies the position for the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Brake: I thank the hon. Lady for her answer. I welcome the fact that the mayor will be consulted, but we are asking for more than consultation; we are asking for a clause to be written into the contracts to allow the mayor and the GLA an opportunity to review them in a couple of years once the PPP has bedded down. The Minister will say that the contracts have been drawn up, but I am well aware, from my previous employment, that flexibility can be built into contracts to provide more or less service. That could be negotiated in the current deal.

Ms Jackson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene on him a third time. In essence, he was saying that the contract would agree to intervention. As we have already made clear, the Government are committed to completing the PPP process. A contract that contains within it the possibility of the various issues that he mentioned being reconsidered will be a completed contract. Surely he is not suggesting that someone would enter into a binding contract with the proviso that, perhaps two years down the line, all involved could ignore the signatures on the paper. That would be a curious way of conducting business.

Mr. Brake: I do not feel that we should debate this any further, but that was not the point that I was making. I think that the Minister understands perfectly that we are saying that, two years into a contract, there should be a review point at which the contractors, the mayor and the GLA would negotiate some flexibility, perhaps enhancing certain services and reducing others. I assure the Minister that it can be done if the will is there to do it.
Londoners expect road traffic reduction to be tackled. The Government have already missed the opportunity to deal with road traffic reduction at a national level, so let us not miss the opportunity in London. A slowdown in the increase in the number of cars in London is not an option. Surely London, of all the areas in the country, is the one where the Government, the mayor and the GLA

should be committed to reducing traffic. I see no reason why that could not be written into the mayor's transport strategy at this point, so that there is a firm commitment to deliver significant road traffic reduction in London.
On a related matter, scope should be given to Transport for London to anticipate congestion charges and parking levies in order to raise revenue now. That will ensure that the carrots are provided now—the sticks can come in future, once a viable alternative is in place.
We need greater integration of the rail services. The Bill is not as tough as it could be. Yes, the mayor is able to give advice to the franchising director, but the franchising director is not required to take it.
I fail to understand why all boards except one will have assembly members or borough representatives on them. The board of Transport for London will be the sole board on which no assembly member or borough councillor will be present. I should like the Minister to explain the logic behind that. I understand the need to have experts on boards, but why not have one elected representative who can put the views of London commuters? I look forward to the Minister's explanation.
The introduction of the new Metropolitan police authority is to be welcomed. It will help to restore confidence in the Metropolitan police and give the whole community a stake in its police. That is vital, given that confidence in the Met is low following the Stephen Lawrence inquiry.
If London is to maintain and strengthen its position as the world's premier city, the GLA must be given the wherewithal to integrate all modes of transport, including rail. The mayor must be given the power to enhance not only buses but tube and train services, funded by congestion charges and parking levies. Londoners must know that their money will be spent on London transport, the whole of London transport and nothing but London transport, in its entirety and for eternity. I am sure that we shall return to those issues in Committee.

Siobhain McDonagh: Like many hon. Members who have spoken in favour of the Bill, my views have been formed by experience in London local government. Having been a London councillor for 16 years, during the time of the Greater London council and after its demise, I am glad that the Bill does not mark a return to the GLC, but establishes a genuinely new strategic body that will focus on certain core responsibilities.
The GLC performed some things well, but its remit was too vast and the things that it tried to do too numerous for the services that it provided to be of consistently high or responsive quality. The Greater London authority, by virtue of being much more narrowly defined and having its role very carefully specified, stands a much better chance of beginning to tackle some of the endemic problems that have beset London for too long.
It has long been my belief that the main division in London today is not between north and south of the river, as was traditionally the case—although, having been born and bred in south London, I recognise that divide—but between inner and outer-London. As my constituency is at the very southern tip of the Northern line, I qualify as an outer-London Member of Parliament. The problems of


outer London boroughs such as my own are, of course, very different in many respects from those of inner London.
In terms of housing and education, for example, many inner London boroughs have vast social problems that we in outer London, thankfully do not face. That is why it is good that the government have left responsibility for those issues firmly where they belong—with local councils, which are best placed to devise local solutions to their own problems.
Although much divides inner and outer London, we have some extremely important common problems, and they will require effective policies from the mayor and the assembly. The Bill identifies transport, planning, development and the police as major areas for the mayor and the assembly. Many hon. Members have made their comments on specific matters contained in the Bill. I shall add a few words, not so much on the substance of the GLA's responsibilities as on the manner in which they are to be carried out.
I hope that the GLA will become a model for a new type of strategic authority, one which genuinely listens and responds to those who will be directly affected by its decisions. Ironically, by the way in which she abolished it, Baroness Thatcher succeeded in making the GLC wildly popular. During that time, the people of London felt genuinely close to an organisation from which they had felt distanced for years.
It is crucial that the GLA establishes a similar rapport with Londoners. It can do that only if it seeks out relevant views and opinions and by genuinely listening to people with experience of the issues within its remit. That is why I am slightly concerned to note the responses to the Bill from the London Voluntary Service Council and the London Chamber of Commerce. Both organisations warmly welcome the establishment of the authority, but question its commitment to meaningful consultation.
Both the voluntary sector and the business community contain an enormous wealth of experience and expertise that must be listened to by any strategic authority concerned with planning, development and transport. Just as the Government are calling on authorities throughout the country to change the culture of local government and to commit themselves to modernisation and openness, the GLA must lead the way in demonstrating a willingness to engage in meaningful consultation. I am sure that a commitment to full, open and regular consultation with business, borough councils and the voluntary sector is implicit in the Bill, but it does no harm to emphasise it and to assure those important partners that their views will be heard.
There is no shortage of Londoners with a view on the future of our city—ask any cab driver. There exists an anonymous web of quangos, panels, bodies, councils and boards of all kinds, all of which are churning out reports and recommendations on a vast range of subjects directly relevant to the work of the GLA. There can be no doubt that the absence of a strategic government for the capital has meant that so much of this work remains fragmented and ineffective. The GLA must pull this together and harness the energy in building a better future for London.
The referendum last year showed that Londoners want the new mayor and the assembly and will welcome the Bill. If the mayor and the assembly demonstrate a willingness to hear the views of Londoners and to take those views seriously, they can build on this good will to benefit all of London.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: Time does not permit me to dwell on the speeches that have been made, other than to pour praise on my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), who showed that he can always enhance any debate, and to say to the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Ms Ryan), as someone who represents the most southerly constituency in London, that she should bear in mind the fact that London's economic recovery started after we abolished the GLC.
Our fundamental concern about the Bill is that clash and conflict between the new authority and the boroughs will be inevitable. It is for that reason that we urged the Government to have two questions in last May's referendum. If we had been successful, as many thought we should be, we would have said yes to the mayor, but no to the Government's current proposals for the assembly.
We believe that an assembly made up of representatives from the 32 London boroughs and the corporation of London would avoid conflict within the authority and build a bridge between the man in the street and the mayor. That is the basis of our reasoned amendment.
It has been argued that that proposal is flawed. The case against it put forward yesterday by hon. Members was that, perish the thought, borough representatives would stand up for their boroughs; but that is the essence of democracy. We put our constituency point of view and the mayor is going to stand up for London, so what is wrong with an assembly comprised of borough representatives standing up for their boroughs?
Indeed, the weakness of the proposed closed-list proportional representation structure is that the mayor will be detached from what the man in the street is thinking. Borough representatives would tell him. That is better than focus groups, consultants and unelected officials. We in the Conservative party believe in the borough link. We believe that it is the cornerstone of democracy and have no hesitation in fighting for it tonight.
The House should be in no doubt about the threat that the Bill poses to the boroughs of London. Clash and conflict are inevitable. The impact of the Greater London authority is just dawning on London authorities. The latest edition of the Local Government Chronicle quotes the chief executive of Kensington and Chelsea:
I think the immediate things that make everybody's hair begin to rise are the road network, transportation and planning, where the potential for conflict is substantial.
Lest anyone thinks that that quote is politically biased, I quote the chief executive of Islington:
It's now about to dawn on everyone that the GLA is going to have a massive impact on the way the boroughs operate.


The Minister for London and Construction yesterday waved a letter, as he did this afternoon, from someone calling himself the chair of the Association of London Government.

Mr. Raynsford: He is a council leader himself.

Mr. Ottaway: The Minister makes my very point. That spontaneous letter turned up, just by coincidence, on the day of Second Reading. I am sure that the Minister will let us know in his winding-up speech whether he requested that letter, but, having made inquiries into the its origin, I find that that opinion was reached without any consultation within the ALG and, as was effectively drawn out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), the shadow Home Secretary, it flies in the face of the real opinion of ALG leaders.

Mr. Raynsford: That was 12 months ago.

Mr. Ottaway: I know that the Labour party is good at shifting its views, but to have a complete U-turn on its policy within 12 months takes the biscuit.
If ever there was a Jekyll and Hyde piece of legislation, this is it. It sets up a new authority with a powerful mayor, with his own mandate. However, it contains as many measures giving powers to the Secretary of State as references to the mayor. We have only to look at clause 18 to get a feel for the legislation. It refers to the Secretary of State eight times, to the Treasury twice and to the mayor not at all.
The briefest examination of clauses 70 and 71 reveals that the Secretary of State can either increase, decrease or change the budget in any way he wants. As for clause 73, where the council tax is calculated by the formula R minus P1 minus A divided by T, all I can say is that any Bill with a formula in it is on the road to ruin.

Mr. Keith Hill: Why?

Mr. Ottaway: The hon. Gentleman will soon find out.
The true picture is emerging. The Prime Minister wanted a presidential-style mayor with glamour, and the Deputy Prime Minister then spent 18 months constructing a straitjacket for him. It is almost as if they knew that their efforts to prevent the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) from becoming mayor were doomed. It is legislation designed to keep him in check in the event of his success. We hereby name those the Livingstone clauses.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ottaway: I am sorry. Time does not permit me. I will give way in a minute if I get ahead of the clock.
What is becoming clear is that, such are the Secretary of State's powers that, whoever is nominally elected as the first mayor of London, the real first mayor of London will be the right hon. Member for Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). He will make the decisions; he has the power. If that is freedom for London, it is freedom in a straitjacket. The Government are saying, "Do anything

you like as long as it is what we tell you to do." If anything epitomises the Blair Government and their control-freak tendencies, it is the Bill.
If anything illustrates the Government's muddled thinking, it is their proposals for congestion charging. Eighty per cent. of commuters into London already travel by public transport, but the Deputy Prime Minister wants to hit the other 20 per cent. His excuse for clobbering the private commuter is that the roads are congested; that is his story and he is sticking it.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sticking it?"]—sticking to it—but what is causing the congestion? Is it the volume of traffic or could it be the actions of the Traffic Director for London, who published his revisions to the network plan some two months ago? In it, he said:
Red route success will now be judged against tough new targets set by the Secretary of State for Transport. Targets include providing at least 500 new signalled pedestrian crossings, traffic calming at 1,200 side road junctions, 200 cycle crossings".
That is fair enough—it is a clear statement of policy—but the point is that the congestion is being caused not by the motorist, but by the Government.
I have to hand it to the Deputy Prime Minister. He creates the congestion, taxes it and then uses it to replace the subsidy to London Underground, but is he going to apply the money to London Underground? I hope that the Minister will use his winding-up speech to clear up the muddled picture over London Underground's finances.
We know from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Government subsidy for London Underground ends in 2000, presumably at the end of the financial year in March. We also know from the Deputy Prime Minister's speech yesterday that his plans for public-private partnership may not be ready by then. That is fair enough, so, first, can the Minister confirm that he will seek further subsidy from the Government to cover the interim period until the plans are in place?
Secondly, we had until now assumed that the proceeds of congestion charging would be used to replace the subsidy. The Minister makes it clear that that is not the case, but, when questioned about the on-going costs of the public-private partnership, the Deputy Prime Minister said that that was a matter not for him, but for the mayor, so the picture is becoming clearer.
The Deputy Prime Minister is inviting investment in an inherently loss-making organisation. He talks of £7 billion investment from the private sector. He will then turn to the mayor and say, "You pay it back." That means two things. First, removing the subsidy from London Underground is, effectively, a tax by the back door on Londoners. Secondly, it is a £7 billion invoice sitting on the mayor's desk on the day that he starts work.
If there is one concern that rises above all others, it is the expectations that have been raised by Labour's legendary spin doctors: those men of the Millbank tendency, who sit in that rather fuddy-duddy tower along the Embankment, take any proposal and inject adjectives such as radical, modern, world-class, strong, integrated, improving, building, tackling, better—all words raising the temperature in judging the success or failure of a given policy.
It is the approach of those who have never had to stand up and face the electorate. They were at it yesterday when they stuck in the Deputy Prime Minister's speech the fact that the mayor would be able to eliminate poverty and social exclusion in London. The serious point is that the


inherent danger in letting those people loose through that most powerful of media, the British media, is that expectations are raised among the people of London and the country generally that things can be achieved when, in fact, they can never be achieved.
Never could there be a bigger clash or conflict between new Labour's ideas and the expectations raised for London than when there is a confrontation with the biggest gimmick of them all. Twice a year, the mayor and the assembly will attend a meeting which will be open to all members of the public and which will be known as a people's question time. That takes the biscuit. We have the people's Parliament, the people's Government and now the people's question time.
Who can attend? Who will be the lucky people to put a question to mayor Ken? It does not say in the Bill, and, as far as I can see, the 52 million people in the United Kingdom are allowed to attend, and probably 300 million people from the European Union as well. Perhaps that could explain the secret, hidden after-use for the Dome. Is that where Mayor Ken will hold his people's question time?

Mr. Simon Hughes: I have heard what the hon. Gentleman said about question time and that is a relatively small part of the Bill. However, does he not accept that it is far better for people elected by Londoners to be held to account by Londoners? At the moment, the people who represent and speak for London, including the Minister and the Minister for Transport in London, are appointed rather than elected, and are under no obligation to speak to a single Londoner.

Mr. Ottaway: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I object to the gimmicky nature of the people's question time. Let us have a proper question time, but let us not have it in this new Labour gimmicky style that does nothing but try to appeal to the British media.
I was talking about people's question time being conducted by mayor Ken. I am for ever grateful to whoever is continuing to send me copies of the minutes of the meetings of the London Labour party. The latest report says:
'Control freakery' is not just a bad habit of over-zealous Party apparatchiks. It is an intrinsic part of the Blairite strategy for managing a democratic society in conditions of economic instability.
Do they know something that we do not know? It goes on:
Tony Blair has made clear his intention to exclude Ken Livingstone from Labour's one member one vote ballot for London Mayor. At … AGM Ken declared he would fight this battle 'to the wire'. His determination was warmly welcomed, as it will be among tens of thousands of Labour activists and millions of London's voters.
It does not stop there. It goes on:
The current crisis over the selection of candidates consequently raises the issue of keeping the Party Labour. The most hardline position is summarised by Fraser Kemp MP, quoted as saying about the vetting system: 'If we are to be consistent, it has to apply to Westminster MPs'. If the Millbank Tendency pursues this line it will lead to further clashes with the membership.
That is what it will be about. When London needs a clear and cohesive voice, a voice of quiet reason to pull together and harness the energy that is this great city,

the Government blow it. They argue among themselves, then hype it to a level that raises people's expectations and on which they cannot deliver.
It will be a battle from the outset with every pressure group in London and beyond looking for instant salvation. Those people will be doing that because the Government have told them that the Bill will be the be-all and end-all of their problems. The Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister and the House know that that is not the case. The sooner the expectations are tempered, the better it will be for London and Londoners.
This is a complex piece of legislation and we will do our best to make positive suggestions for improvements, as would be expected from a constructive Opposition. Whoever wins the election and becomes the mayor, and whoever ends up in the assembly will have a tough time. The Bill makes their job harder, not easier, and I urge the House to reject it.

The Minister for London and Construction (Mr. Nick Raynsford): Opening the debate yesterday, the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) referred to the Bill's proposals as an "experiment". She is wrong. The Bill puts an end to an experiment on which the Conservative party embarked in 1986. It was an experiment to see whether it was possible to run one of the world's great cities without any strategic direction, with no citywide representation, with no leadership, with no responsibility and with no accountability.
It was clear from the start that the experiment would not work. It was clear that one could not run a city the size of London through quangos, joint boards, ad hoc committees and obscure advisory panels. Any Londoner could have told the Conservative Government that. Londoners could see that, with no one in charge, there was no one able to take effective action to tackle strategic issues affecting the city. No one was able to take real steps to reduce poverty and social exclusion across the capital. There was no one to take responsibility for London's transport infrastructure and traffic congestion, which the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) appears to believe only arrived in the capital 18 months ago with the election of this Government. That is an extraordinary proposition. There was no one taking on the problem of air pollution and congestion.
Of course, 12 years ago, nobody bothered to ask the people of London. What a contrast with the approach that has characterised the development of the proposals before the House tonight. The proposals formed a key part of our manifesto and have been subject to extensive consultation, arising from the Green Paper we published last July and then confirmed in the White Paper published in March. Those proposals were then put to the people of London and approved in a referendum in May. In that referendum, people in every borough across the capital voted yes to a mayor and assembly for London. Their verdict was clear; the great experiment of 1986 had failed. All it proved, in the end, was that where no one is in charge, nothing will get done.
All over London—except, perhaps, on part of the Opposition Benches—there is now an acceptance of the principles underlying our proposals: that London needs a


strategic level of governance; that it must deliver a proper balance of leadership and democratic accountability; and that it must work in close partnership with the rest of London—with business, the boroughs and London's voluntary sector—in fulfilling its role.
It shows just how far we have come. We have a Bill and we have general support for the principle from the public and, I believe, from most parts of the House. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), in between announcing his candidacy for the mayoralty, confirmed yesterday that the Liberal Democrats would support the Bill. We welcome that. However, The Official Opposition are all over the place. They tell us now that they support the idea of a mayor, conveniently forgetting to mention that they strenuously opposed the proposition until last year's general election. Obviously, we welcome the change of heart, as, no doubt, does Lord Archer. He has been assiduous in listening to the debates, and he must have been astonished that his own party referred frequently to mayoral candidates without once mentioning the possibility of him being elected. What an interesting indication of the Conservative party's lack of confidence in its leading candidate.
The Conservative party appears to be oblivious to the obvious truth that, if there is to be a mayor responsible for a city the size of London, that mayor must be accountable. There must be an elected assembly able to keep watch on the mayor's actions, to scrutinise and agree the mayor's budgets and to take up issues of concern to Londoners and matters of Londonwide importance.

Sir Paul Beresford: In reality, the assembly will be a toothless organisation—excuse the pun, given my other profession. The mayor will present what he wishes to the assembly and it will forward reports to him, which he can reject overnight. The assembly will be able to vary the budget only if it gets a two-thirds majority in a hung council, with the influence of the patronage of the mayor who is responsible for the jobs of about a third of the assembly members. That is not realistic.

Mr. Raynsford: The only toothless people I feel sorry for are the victims of the hon. Gentleman in his other walk of life. This is a carefully structured system to ensure accountability. The assembly will be able to override the mayor where it believes firmly that the mayor is wrong and it can command a two-thirds majority. It makes sense.
The idea of an assembly composed solely of current borough council leaders is, quite simply, inadequate. The borough leaders already have sufficient responsibilities in their own areas, and will rightly continue to pursue their own local interests rather than taking the wider perspective essential for a wider city assembly. Regardless, the boroughs themselves—whom the Tories claim to be supporting—have made it manifestly clear that they want nothing to do with the Tories' propositions.
The Opposition are proposing an arrangement that is patently unsatisfactory, and that does not command the support of the London boroughs or even of all their own Back Benchers—some of whom argued yesterday for an elected assembly. What a mess, and what a party! It is no wonder that the Leader of the Opposition has issued a Christmas card depicting a rather small flock of

miserable-looking sheep being herded by a demented shepherd into oblivion. I can think of no more appropriate metaphor for the Opposition's stance on this legislation. The Government are adopting a very different approach.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am not dissenting from the Minister's analysis; I have heard about the Christmas card. Will he confirm that, if the general view of the Committee and others is that the mayor's powers need to be reined in—particularly on the recall issue, which we debated yesterday—and that the assembly's powers have to be increased, the Government will favourably consider readjusting the powers of the two parts of the Greater London authority?

Mr. Raynsford: I confirm that we have constructed proposals that are designed to ensure a proper balance between the powers of the assembly and those of the mayor. We shall happily debate that balance, and whether any adjustment to it is necessary. However, we believe that we have created the right structure of a democratically elected mayor and a democratically elected assembly, who will be able to work together in the interests of London.
The mayor and assembly will be able to work also with the boroughs to pursue London's interests. That is what we want—a framework to serve the people of London. The framework will also involve radical new voting systems, giving the mayor a strong mandate and creating an inclusive assembly.

Sir Norman Fowler: As for that radical new voting system, why is the hon. Gentleman proposing the closed-party-list system?

Mr. Raynsford: As the right hon. Gentleman should know by now, we are proposing exactly the same system as applies in Scotland and Wales—where people will have a direct choice of their own constituency candidate, for whom they will personally be able to vote. There will be a top-up vote for parties to ensure that there is a proper, proportionate election which is representative of those parties. It is a fair system. It is the system that will apply in Scotland and Wales, and it will apply also in London. Only the right hon. Gentleman—who is obsessed with the issue—seems to see any disadvantage in it.
Londoners will have a new role in ensuring direct, face-to-face accountability by participating with the mayor in the people's question time—which the hon. Member for Croydon, South had the gall to condemn and to try to ridicule. I hope that the people of London will take note of the contempt for democracy and for the people of London that he demonstrated.
Many hon. Members from both sides have spoken and intervened in this debate. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) not only made his rather curious foray into the issue of voting arrangements, but indicated the Conservative party's failure to reach a decision on the creation of the Metropolitan police authority. In his words, he had "suspended judgment"—I think that that means that he is sitting on the fence—on creation of the authority.
It is extraordinary that Conservative Members have taken so long to reach a view on the Metropolitan police authority. After all, it has been five years since the former Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), stated:
I have also re-examined the role of the Home Secretary in relation to the Metropolitan police. I propose to establish for the first time a police authority for the Metropolitan police on the new national model separate from the Home Office and with essentially the same tasks as police authorities elsewhere."—[Official Report, 23 March 1993; Vol. 221, c. 766.]
He was right. Why on earth has the Conservative party taken so long to catch up with him? Perhaps it is uncomfortable for Conservative Members to be associated with the right hon. and learned Gentleman because of his views on Europe.

Sir Norman Fowler: In helping us, will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether he believes that, at the end of three years, there will be more or fewer police in the Metropolitan police?

Mr. Raynsford: As the right hon. Gentleman will know, in the arrangements that we are making, the Home Secretary will retain a reserve power to ensure that there will be an adequate budget to maintain an adequate and satisfactory level of policing.

Sir Norman Fowler: How many?

Mr. Raynsford: I cannot tell the right hon. Gentleman that—no one in my position can do so—as I am not responsible for that budget. However, I can give him the very clear indication—as the Home Secretary gave it earlier in the debate—that the Home Secretary is determined to ensure that the Metropolitan police force has the resources necessary to discharge its functions. That is what we shall ensure.
My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) asked a number of questions, the first of which was on east London river crossings. The Government have said that decisions on new crossings must wait for the new mayor. However, the Government will safeguard the alignments and ensure that preparatory work continues so that the mayor will be able quickly to reach a view. Meanwhile, English Partnerships is performing development work on the crossings.
My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town asked questions also about the Metropolitan police budget for their work in national functions. I assure him that, for 1999–2000, the police were allocated a special payment in recognition of their special capital city, national and international functions. The payment will be made as part of the central Government funding formula and will not be affected by creation of the new Greater London authority.
The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), with his usual humour, expressed some distaste for the constitutional reform that the Government have begun. I hope that, in the years ahead, he will look back and regale his grandchildren and others in his usual humorous way with stories of the role that he played in the establishment of Britain's new constitutional arrangements, which secured a far better and more democratic society than the one that he knew initially.
The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster asked also about planning powers. His rather relaxed view of whether tall buildings or very large office

blocks should be subject to the mayor's scrutiny is not entirely in keeping with the views of many people in London, including some of his own constituents—to whom I was speaking at a meeting of the Knightsbridge Association—who have expressed concern about the scale of development. It is right that we have to strike a balance in the matter—which we are attempting to do—between legitimate concern for environmental protection and arrangements to enable business not only to prosper, but to thrive. We have consulted on the matter, and are considering the conclusions to be drawn from the consultation. We shall soon make announcements on it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Ms Ryan), in a very effective speech, highlighted the importance of the economy and action by the new authority to improve London's economy. She stressed that the Bill was a step forward in the relationship between the Metropolitan police and the people of London.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) gave a welcome to the Metropolitan police authority. He asked questions about police funding to which I have already responded. He asked a series of questions on transport, not all of which I shall be able to answer now because of the shortage of time. Nevertheless, I shall stress to him two points.
First, the Government are quite determined to ensure that there is in place a satisfactory public-private partnership to guarantee adequate funding for the underground for the years ahead. It is the Government's responsibility to make those arrangements. The mayor, when elected, will be consulted on them, but it would be crazy to amend a bidding process and contractual arrangements when we are halfway through them. That would simply not be practical politics.
Secondly—as the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington asked about the composition of Transport for London—I stress that the body will be an executive that executes the strategy determined by the mayor, who will be the democratically accountable person.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh)—in a commendably brief speech, which was not necessarily her choice, but due to time constraints—gave warm support to the restoration of citywide government.
We have lived through a period in which London has lacked strategic government. We are bringing that period to an end. We are restoring a democratically elected citywide government to London—a new form of strategic citywide government—with the power to make a difference. We promised to put right the civic vandalism of 1986, and to restore democratic and accountable government to the capital. The Bill delivers on that promise. I warmly commend it to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 140, Noes 396.

Division No. 23]
[7 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Beresford, Sir Paul


Amess, David
Blunt, Crispin


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Body, Sir Richard


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Boswell, Tim


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)


Beggs, Roy
Brady, Graham


Bercow, John
Brazier, Julian






Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Loughton, Tim


Browning, Mrs Angela
Luff, Peter


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Burns, Simon
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Butterfill, John
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
McLoughlin, Patrick



Malins, Humfrey


Clappison, James
Maples, John


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
May, Mrs Theresa



Moss, Malcolm


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Nicholls, Patrick


Collins, Tim
Norman, Archie


Colvin, Michael
Ottaway, Richard


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Page, Richard


Cran, James
Paice, James


Curry, Rt Hon David
Paterson, Owen


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Pickles, Eric


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Prior, David


Day, Stephen
Randall, John


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Duncan Smith, Iain
Robathan, Andrew


Evans, Nigel
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Faber, David
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Fallon, Michael
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Ruffley, David


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
St Aubyn, Nick


Fox, Dr Liam
Sayeed, Jonathan


Fraser, Christopher
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Gale, Roger
Shepherd, Richard


Garnier, Edward
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Gibb Nick
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Gill, Christopher
Spicer, Sir Michael


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Spring, Richard


Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Steen, Anthony


Gray, James
Streeter, Gary


Green, Damian
Swayne, Desmond


Greenway, John
Syms, Robert


Grieve, Dominic
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Ian(Esher & Walton)


Hague, Rt Hon William
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Taylor, Sir Teddy



Thompson, William


Hammond Philip
Townend, John


Hawkins, Nick
Tredinnick, David


Hayes, John
Trend, Michael


Heald, Oliver
Tyrie, Andrew


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Viggers, Peter


Horam, John
Wardle, Charles


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Waterson, Nigel


Hunter, Andrew
Wells, Bowen


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Whittingdale, John


Jenkin, Bernard
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wilkinson, John



Willetts, David


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Wilshire, David


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Yeo, Tim


Lansley, Andrew
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Letwin, Oliver



Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Lidington, David
Mrs. Caroline Spelman and


Lillley, Rt Hon Peter
Sir David Madel.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Armstrong, Ms Hilary


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Ashton, Joe


Ainger, Nick
Atherton, Ms Candy


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Atkins, Charlotte


Alexander, Douglas
Austin, John



Baker, Norman


Allan, Richard
Ballard, Jackie


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Banks, Tony





Barnes, Harry
Cox, Tom


Barron, Kevin
Cranston, Ross


Battle, John
Crausby, David


Bayley, Hugh
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Beard, Nigel
Cummings, John


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Begg, Miss Anne
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)


Bell, Martin (Tatton)



Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Darvill, Keith


Bennett, Andrew F
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Benton, Joe
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Bermingham, Gerald
Davidson, Ian


Berry, Roger
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Best, Harold
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Betts, Clive
Dawson, Hilton


Blackman, Liz
Dean, Mrs Janet


Blears, Ms Hazel
Denham, John


Blizzard, Bob
Dismore, Andrew


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Dobbin, Jim


Boateng, Paul
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Borrow, David
Donohoe, Brian H


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Doran, Frank


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Dowd, Jim


Bradshaw, Ben
Drew, David


Brake, Tom
Drown, Ms Julia


Brand, Dr Peter
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Breed, Colin
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Edwards, Huw


Browne, Desmond
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Ennis, Jeff


Buck, Ms Karen
Etherington, Bill


Burden, Richard
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Burgon, Colin
Fearn, Ronnie


Burnett, John
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Burstow, Paul
Fisher, Mark


Butler, Mrs Christine
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Flint, Caroline


Cable, Dr Vincent
Flynn, Paul


Caborn, Richard
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Foulkes, George


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Fyfe, Maria


Cann, Jamie
Galloway, George


Caplin, Ivor
Gapes, Mike


Casale, Roger
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Caton, Martin
Gerrard, Neil


Cawsey, Ian
Gibson, Dr Ian


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Chidgey, David
Godman, Dr Norman A


Chisholm, Malcolm
Godsiff, Roger


Clapham, Michael
Goggins, Paul


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Gorrie, Donald


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clelland, David
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clwyd, Ann
Grocott, Bruce


Coaker, Vernon
Grogan, John


Coffey, Ms Ann
Gunnell, John


Cohen, Harry
Hain, Peter


Coleman, Iain
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Colman, Tony
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Connarty, Michael
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hancock, Mike


Cooper, Yvette
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Corbett, Robin
Harris, Dr Evan


Corbyn, Jeremy
Harvey, Nick


Corston, Ms Jean
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Cotter, Brian
Healey, John


Cousins, Jim
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)






Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Heppell, John
McIsaac, Shona


Hesford, Stephen
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Hinchliffe, David
Mackinlay, Andrew


Hodge, Ms Margaret
McNamara, Kevin


Hoey, Kate
McNulty, Tony


Home Robertson, John
MacShane, Denis


Hood, Jimmy
Mactaggart, Fiona


Hoon, Geoffrey
McWilliam, John


Hope, Phil
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hopkins, Kelvin
Mallaber, Judy


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Marek, Dr John


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Howells, Dr Kim
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Humble, Mrs Joan
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Hurst, Alan
Martlew, Eric


Hutton, John
Maxton, John


Iddon, Dr Brian
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Illsley, Eric
Merron, Gillian


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Michael, Alun


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)


Jamieson, David
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Jenkins, Brian
Milburn, Alan


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Miller, Andrew


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Mitchell, Austin



Moffatt, Laura


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Moore, Michael


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Jowell, Ms Tessa
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Keeble, Ms Sally
Morley, Elliot


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Mudie, George


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Mullin, Chris


Kemp, Fraser
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Norris, Dan


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Oaten, Mark


Khabra, Piara S
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Kidney, David
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Olner, Bill


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
O'Neill, Martin


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Öpik, Lembit


Kingham, Ms Tess
Organ, Mrs Diana


Kirkwood, Archy
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Pearson, Ian


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Pendry, Tom


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Perham, Ms Linda


Laxton, Bob
Ptekthall, Colin


Lepper, David
Pike, Peter L


Leslie, Christopher
Plaskitt, James


Levitt, Tom
Pond, Chris


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Pound, Stephen


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Powell, Sir Raymond


Linton, Martin
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Livingstone, Ken
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Livsey, Richard
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Llwyd, Elfyn
Primarolo, Dawn


Lock, David
Prosser, Gwyn


Love, Andrew
Purchase, Ken


McAllion, John
Quin, Ms Joyce


McAvoy, Thomas
Quinn, Lawrie


McCabe, Steve
Radice, Giles


McDonagh, Siobhain
Rammell, Bill


Macdonald, Calum
Rapson, Syd


McDonnell, John
Raynsford, Nick


McFall, John






Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Stringer, Graham


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Rendel, David
Stunell, Andrew


Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)
Sutcliffe, Gerry



Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)



Roche, Mrs Barbara
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Rogers, Allan
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Rooker, Jeff
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Rooney, Terry
Temple-Morris, Peter


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Rowlands, Ted
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Ruane, Chris
Timms, Stephen


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Tipping, Paddy


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Todd, Mark


Ryan, Ms Joan
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Salmond, Alex
Touhig, Don


Salter, Martin
Trickett, Jon


Sanders, Adrian
Truswell, Paul


Sarwar, Mohammad
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Savidge, Malcolm
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Sawford, Phil
Tyler, Paul


Sedgemore, Brian
Vis, Dr Rudi


Shaw, Jonathan
Wallace, James


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Ward, Ms Claire


Shipley, Ms Debra
Wareing, Robert N


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Watts, David


Singh, Marsha
Webb, Steve


Skinner, Dennis
Welsh, Andrew


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
White, Brian


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Wicks, Malcolm



Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Smith, John (Glamorgan)



Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns)
Willis, Phil


Snape, Peter
Winnick, David


Soley, Clive
Wise, Audrey


Spellar, John
Wood, Mike


Squire, Ms Rachel
Woolas, Phil


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Worthington, Tony


Steinberg, Gerry
Wray, James


Stevenson, George
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Stinchcombe, Paul
Wyatt, Derek


Stoate, Dr Howard



Stott, Roger
Tellers for the Noes:


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Mr. Greg Pope and


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Mr. Keith Hill.

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Ordered,
That Clauses 1 to 4 and Schedules 1 and 2 be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
That the remainder of the Bill be committed to a Standing Committee.
That when the provisions of the Bill considered, respectively, by the Committee of the whole House and by Standing Committee have been reported to the House, the Bill be proceeded with as if the Bill had been reported as a whole to the House from the Standing Committee.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Orders of the Day — GREATER LONDON AUTHORITY BILL [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Greater London Authority Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

(1) the charging on, and payment out of, the Consolidated Fund of expenditure incurred by returning officers in relation to the holding of the first ordinary election of the Greater London Authority; and
(2) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown or government department under or by virtue of the Act; and
(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of such money under any other Act.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — GREATER LONDON AUTHORITY BILL [WAYS AND MEANS]

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Greater London Authority Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

(1) the making of provision for and in connection with—

(a) the levying of charges on persons using or keeping motor vehicles on roads in Greater London;
(b) the levying of charges on persons providing parking places for motor vehicles in Greater London; and
(c) charges to tax in connection with transfers of property, rights and liabilities; and

(2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Fisheries

[Relevant document: Unnumbered explanatory memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 7th December 1998 relating to the laying down, for 1999, of certain measures for the conservation and management of fishery resources applicable to vessels flying the flag of Norway and allocating, for 1999, catch quotas between member states for vessels fishing in the Norwegian exclusive economic zone and the fishing zone around Jan Mayen.]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Union Document No. COM(98)680, relating to the fixing of total allowable catches for 1999 and certain conditions under which they may be fished; and supports the Government's intentions to negotiate the best possible fishing opportunities for British fishermen based on sustainable fisheries management, effective enforcement and the need to ensure that regional differences of fisheries are fully recognized.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I must inform the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), and also that Madam Speaker has decided that the 10-minutes rule should apply to all Back-Bench speeches.

Mr. Morley: It has become traditional for the House to hold a debate on fisheries in advance of the December meeting of the Fisheries Council, which sets total allowable catches and quotas for the following year.
I know that this is an important occasion for hon. Members who represent fishing constituencies, and, indeed, for all hon. Members who take an active interest in fisheries policy generally. In accordance with that custom and practice, I shall not just focus on the decisions that will be made at the Fisheries Council meeting later this week, important though they are. This is also an opportunity for me to review the key developments in fisheries policy that have occurred over the last year, and to consider the issues that we are likely to face.
It is worth recalling the hazards that fishermen experience, and the tragic loss of life that results all too frequently. This year has been no exception, with 24 lives lost to date. Let me express my condolences to the families of the four men who were lost in the Iona tragedy, and also to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie). I understand that the men involved in that tragic accident were from fishing families on the island, and I well understand how a small community such as that on Bute must have been affected. I am sure that I speak for the whole House in that regard.
Although I do not have direct responsibility for safety at sea—that falls to my colleagues at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions—it greatly concerns all of us who are involved with the industry in any way that, all too often, such a high price is paid for the harvesting of one of nature's most generous resources. We have a duty both to improve safety standards and to ensure that we make the best possible use of the fish


stocks that the industry puts such resources into harvesting. We need to achieve safe and sustainable fisheries for the benefit of all.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I certainly concur with what the Minister said about the debt that we owe the fishing communities.
Having compared notes with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), I have established that this is the 16th year in which our debate has taken place. One thing has not changed, and I should like to hear the Minister's view. I do not see how any Government can expect the industry to respond to such short-term decision making. How can it plan a coherent future when, year after year, we give it so little notice to enable it to make arrangements for its work in the forthcoming year?

Mr. Morley: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point, and intend to touch on it later. The industry does need as much time as possible.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Let me offer the Minister a more precise illustration of the difficulties involved. A new quota system for non-sector vessels comes in on 1 January, and track records of their previous fishing must be submitted by 31 December. That is short enough notice, but the Ministry appears to be unable to make available the track records for relevant years until February. Can the Minister suggest a way out of the Catch 22?

Mr. Morley: Yes. I can answer the right hon. Gentleman's questions. As he knows, we are moving to a new system of quota allocation from 1 January next year. The quantity of fish that producer organisations in non-sector and other groups will be able to catch will be based on a proportion of the catches made by the vessels in each group during the reference period 1994 to 1996.
However, we are making special arrangements for the non-sector vessels joining producer organisations from 1 January 1999 and in subsequent years. Vessel owners will have the choice of taking into producer organisation membership quota units based on either the track record for 1994 to 1996 or the proportion of non-sector catch that the vessel took in the past three years. If the right hon. Gentleman would like the details, which are considerable, I would be only too pleased to write to him and address his concerns.
This year, there have been many new initiatives and I shall to touch on the more significant developments. However, they all contribute to pursuing our objective of improving the operation of fisheries policy.
There are four main themes to our approach. First, we wish to achieve more effective and consistent enforcement of fisheries rules across the Community. Secondly, we want environmental considerations to be integrated more fully in the common fisheries policy, to make it a more effective instrument for conserving fish stocks and the wider marine environment. Thirdly, we want structural and conservation measures to be applied in a way that achieves a sustainable future for the fishing industry and enhances economic opportunity in coastal communities.

Fourthly, we would like increased participation by fishermen in the development of fisheries policy. In parallel, we wish to improve the regional dimension of the CFP so that it is more sensitive to local differences.
Those themes provide the broad framework within which the Government pursue fisheries policy. This year, we have taken important strides forward on all fronts. Of course, 1998 began in an untypical way, in that we assumed the presidency of the Fisheries Council for the first six months. Our primary function, as presidency, was to progress the general business of the Council efficiently and expeditiously. I believe that we did so successfully, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who was an outstanding chairman. Under his chairmanship, we made significant progress in a number of our priority areas.
For example, we secured the introduction of new total allowable catches and quotas for North sea stocks, so assisting their conservation as well as safeguarding large shares for UK fishermen. Agreement was reached to phase out the use of high seas tuna drift nets, which will end the unacceptable level of dolphin deaths attributed to those nets. We launched moves to improve enforcement measures which will culminate in the adoption of a new regulation at the December Council later this week. It is very important to the fishing industry to have a common standard and consistency of approach across all member states.

Mr. Christopher Gill: Does the Minister not recognise that, by imposing designated ports on the industry, he will force fishermen to dump more of their catch dead back into the sea? I know that the object of the exercise is to prevent the landing of black fish, but does he concede that those black fish, instead of being landed and possibly consumed, will now add to the huge quantity of fish that is already dumped back dead into the sea?

Mr. Morley: It is certainly true that quota management results in discards. I do not like the idea of discarding marketable fish any more than the hon. Gentleman does, but it is necessary to have some measure to control over-quota landings. It is difficult to distinguish between a fisherman who may have a small quantity of fish that he has caught by accident and one who is deliberately targeting fish knowing that he has exceeded his quota. I have made it clear to the fishing industry that I am always willing to discuss and consider alternative ways of managing quotas and effort, but at present quota management is applied by all countries, whether or not they are in the CFP. Although there are disadvantages, there are also advantages in terms of fisheries management.

Mr. John Townend: I am grateful to the Minister. Does he accept that, although Norway operates quotas, it is illegal there to discard fish and pollute the sea? Is that not a more sensible approach?

Mr. Morley: That is an issue for discussion with the fishing industry. Again, there are advantages and disadvantages. If we insist on landing all species, there are enforcement problems, which the Norwegians are facing. If someone's quota is used up by unmarketable fish, it is difficult to know whether it is being dumped


over the side to make way for marketable fish. There are problems. I acknowledge that there is a genuine debate about the best and most efficient way of managing fisheries and quota, and I am always ready to have discussions with the industry and listen to new ideas.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Does the Minister accept that there is a danger of the reverse effect occurring? If we set a precautionary total which is a sharp downswing—for example, the North sea haddock quota this year—and stock is more abundant than is assumed or suggested by scientific advice, there is an automatic increase in discards and, instead of being a conservation device, the system wastes good fish.

Mr. Morley: I accept that that is a potential consequence of major reductions in TAC and quota, and I shall say a few words about that and my meeting with the fishing industry today.
Also in the past year, an agreement was reached to develop and extend the use of regional meetings that increase the involvement of fishermen in CFP discussions. We certainly want to develop that in the coming year.
This year also saw the Commission initiate preparatory work in connection with the review of the CFP which is due to take place before the end of 2002. I know that that is of considerable interest to many right hon. and hon. Members. In the spring, a questionnaire was distributed widely throughout the Community to allow fishing and other interests to provide initial views on the main issues to be addressed and the Commission received a weighty response from UK organisations and individuals. The autumn saw the beginning of a follow-up series of regional meetings to allow the Commission to hear at first hand the views of fishermen and other interests. Four such meetings were held in the UK in October and, as usual, our industry was not backward in putting forward its views and ideas in relation to 2002.
While we are on the subject of the 2002 review, I should like to dispel once and for all the misconceptions held by some about 31 December 2002. Many wild and somewhat reckless claims have been made about what will happen after that date. Let me make it clear to the House that I want to take on some of the most oft-repeated myths and, I hope, lay them to rest. I was tempted to say, "Read my lips," but as that is the expression of an American President it might not be appropriate. I was referring to President Bush, of course.
First, there are claims that the current CFP expires lock, stock and barrel at the end of 2002. Those making such assertions usually go on to raise the spectre that we will be held to ransom by southern member states who will block the adoption of a new regulation so that there is free access to all fish stocks in all Community waters. On that analysis, relative stability, access restrictions and all the other factors that we and the industry value in the present CFP will disappear.
Let me present the facts. The CFP does not lapse at the end of 2002. Under Council regulation 3760/92, member states are required to decide by 31 December 2002, by qualified majority voting, whether any changes are needed to the present arrangements. If no such changes are agreed, with one exception, all the existing provisions of the regulation will be rolled over automatically beyond 2002.
The one exception is the restriction on access by foreign vessels within national six and 12-mile limits. A further derogation will be needed to maintain those provisions beyond 2002. I know that there is concern among UK fishing and coastal interests that the arrangements will not be renewed. Indeed, it is the single most commented-on issue in my postbag concerning the 2002 review. It was raised in the questionnaires and at the consultative meetings.
Let me therefore make it clear that the Government are totally committed to maintaining those important provisions and are convinced that that will be achieved. The fact is that other member states are as interested in protecting their inshore fleets as we are. The restrictions were agreed unanimously when they last came up for renewal in 1992, and I see no reason why there should be any difficulty about their renewal in 2002.

Mr. Gill: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. The six-mile and 12-mile limits that we currently enjoy are part of the derogation to which he has referred. Why does he say that relative stability, in the form of the national allocation of quota that is part of that derogation, will continue in the future? There is no evidence that it will.

Mr. Morley: I made it clear that, in the interpretation of the regulations, the relative stability is not a derogation. That is the view not only of the Government and the Ministry of Agriculture, but of the Commission, its legal advisers and other countries. There is no argument about that in the European Union. I repeat that, unless there is a majority vote to end relative stability, it will continue automatically after 2002.

Mr. Andrew George: We should not listen to the prophets of doom; the review of the common fisheries policy after 2002 gives us an opportunity to give a more regional dimension to fishing policy. Will the Minister elaborate on that and say whether his discussions with his European counterparts are likely to lead to an increased decentralisation of policy to management at regional or zonal level?

Mr. Morley: Other member states are interested in regional management in the CFP; I shall say a few words about it later.
I am talking about those key elements of the CFP that the fishing industry wants retained after 2002. I hope that minority elements in the UK industry—and some hon. Members who should know better—will stop perpetuating myths that do the fishermen no favours, cultivate unnecessary fears, and distract attention from more meaningful issues. I want in this debate to lay those myths to rest once and for all.
Effort control has been one of the main developments in fisheries policy over the past year. Last December, I explained that, largely as a result of the progress made during negotiations with the European Commission on the UK's detailed plans for implementing multi-annual guidance programme IV, we were able to limit immediate further action in 1998 to the introduction of effort controls in the pelagic and beam trawl segments. The main demersal fleets were spared the imposition of limits.
I also said that our preference was for such controls to be managed by the industry itself, and that there would be detailed discussions with the fishermen on how that


should be done. On 24 February, I announced that, as a result of those meetings, we were allocating fishing effort among the various producer organisations or groups of fishermen and inviting them to manage their own uptake within the allocations on whatever basis they and their members wanted.
I acknowledged that the introduction of those arrangements was a new departure in fisheries policy and promised that we would keep the position under close review. I am happy to say that, despite some initial delays and uncertainties, the arrangements have generally worked well—the UK fleet remains on course to meet its MAGP IV obligations.
We have today embarked on a further round of discussions with the industry on possible modifications to the arrangements for 1999. We are ready to listen to any reasonable suggestions that are consistent with MAGP requirements and the progress that we are making.

Mr. Andrew George: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. Because of unplanned lay-ups in the beam trawl fleet, the days-at-sea target has been undershot. In his negotiations with the industry and the producer organisations, will he allow the unused days to be carried over, as the industry wants?

Mr. Morley: We can consider that in the 1999 arrangements, although the hon. Gentleman should bear in mind the fact that the idea behind the restrictions is to reduce effort. The industry will have an opportunity to put its point of view about how the next phase should operate.

Mr. Bob Blizzard: When all the days at sea have been used, there may still be spare quota because of bad weather or illness, for example. Will my hon. Friend say whether the number of days can be extended to take up that quota, as my local producers organisation believes is the case in Holland?

Mr. Morley: I have heard the assertions about Holland, but they have not been not confirmed. All member states are legally obliged to operate effort controls in line with their MAGP obligations. If any member state does not abide by that legal obligation, the Commission can penalise it, and even refer it to the European Court of Justice. I assure my hon. Friend that we will not hesitate to draw to the Commission's attention any evidence that member states are not complying with their obligations.
I know that many in the industry are now asking whether the progress that we have made on MAGP III and IV is sufficient to make the UK eligible for vessel construction grants under the EU's financial instrument for fisheries guidance. I take this opportunity to make the Government's position clear on the issues involved. First, we would need to clarify with the Commission the progress that we have made on MAGP III and IV and how current performance on effort is to be measured against past performance in capacity terms.
There are much more fundamental issues to do with the justification for such aid and its affordability. I do not want to duck this point, so I shall make clear to the House the Government's feelings about the matter. On the justification of using public money to modernise the

fishing fleet, we must assess our priorities in terms of the way in which the Department applies available resources.
We have made resources available within our budget for further decommissioning in relation to some of the overhang from MAGP III and IV. We have also ensured that there is funding for vessel safety grants, for harbour improvements and for marketing and processing grants. That has directed money to adding value, to marketing and to ensuring that fishermen maximise the value of their catch and secure the best returns from it. Directing available resources in the best interests of the industry is one of our priorities.
On the justification of scrap and build, we do not believe that subsidising capital investment in new fishing vessels is necessarily a sensible use of taxpayers' money, especially while effort controls are in force and stocks remain under severe pressure, and we are continuing to decommission capacity in other parts of the fleet. It would simply not be sustainable, either biologically or economically, to encourage the industry to invest at levels which it could not finance from its own resources.
Hon. Members may remember what happened in the 1980s, when grants were last given to improve vessels. As a result of the modernisation of the UK fleet, effort was increased, which meant that unsustainable pressure was put on fish stocks. Having spent large sums of public money on modernisation to increase the capacity of the fishing fleet in the 1980s, we found ourselves in the ludicrous situation of spending large sums of money in the 1990s on decommissioning vessels because of overcapacity. Unless the policy is carefully thought through, that is one of the problems that may arise if public funds are used for modernization.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I noticed that, although most of my hon. Friend's speech has been characterised by fluent discourse—he has been looking his audience straight in the eye—when he came to the language of priorities, he turned to the prepared text in front of him. That suggests to me Treasury talk: "There ain't going to be any money because we won't put up the necessary supplement." Does he accept that our basic problem is that we have an aging fleet—it is 25 or 30 years old—whereas other countries have modernised their fleets, using European money to which we have not had access?

Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend, who is experienced in relation to the industry, has raised an important point. It is true that other countries have modernised their fleets because they have met their full MAGP targets. We have not, but we are making progress to meet those targets—in a way that the previous Administration failed to do. I recognise my hon. Friend's point, and I do not want to duck the issue of the aging fleet. It is for that reason that, in my negotiations with the fishing industry today, I invited it to meet me and departmental officials to look at ways in which we can work together to address the need for investment and modernisation.
In relation to the changes in terms of fixed-quota allocation, fishing licences have acquired a significant value. That could be collateral for investment loans from banks, in the way that any business plans for investment. I have suggested that we explore this potential capital


asset, and see how we can use it to underpin loans that the industry may wish to negotiate with banks to help finance the kind of modernisation and investment that any industry would carry out. That is what I am prepared to do with the industry to address those problems.

Mr. James Wallace: The Minister has made an interesting statement, which will merit careful consideration. Has he discussed with the banks whether they will accept fishing licences as collateral for substantial loans? What guarantees would the Government and the EU have to give as to the longevity and value of licences over time?

Mr. Morley: We need to resolve those matters in discussion with the industry. I have had discussions with one bank about that very point, and, although I did not raise the matter formally, the indication that I received was that banks would be prepared to consider such an approach. There are issues to resolve, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, and that is why it is worth looking at what is achievable, what is not achievable and how we can utilise what has become an asset within the industry. Anyone who knows the industry will know that that can work to the advantage of the industry.

Mr. Anthony Steen: What is the point of modernising the fleet if the Minister continues to cut the traditional fisheries of the beam trawlers, so that the amount of fish that can be landed is less and less?

Mr. Morley: I know that the hon. Gentleman is speaking for his constituents, and I respect that. However, he knows as well as I do that over-capacity must be addressed. That involves making difficult decisions, but those decisions must be made. Managing fishing stocks involves decisions about sustainability—some of which are difficult, too. However, our approach means that the investment decisions of individual fishermen would be linked to how they were fishing and the kind of effort that they were making. That would be a more sustainable and logical way of determining investment, rather than giving public money for such investment without any thought for the consequences.

Mr. John Hayes: Modernisation and support with marketing must be in the context of a business plan. Our fishermen feel that our competitors have a long-term vision and a sense of how much production and how many producers they want, but that we do not. What is the Government's long-term vision? How many producers will we have? What is the modernisation aiming towards? Where is the marketing taking us?

Mr. Morley: We must match the available capacity to the available fish stocks. Fish stocks vary from year to year, but it is possible for fishermen to make investment plans. I must emphasise that many fishermen in this country—from all sectors of the fleet—are already making that investment, and are identifying market opportunities and seeking returns on their investment. That is happening now—it is nothing new. I want to see how we can extend that.

Mr. Salmond: Twenty years ago, we had one of the most modern fleets in Europe. Now, we have an aging

fleet—its average age is more than a quarter of a century. The Minister was accused by his hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) of reading from a Treasury brief. The Minister said that his hon. Friend was an experienced Member, which meant that he agreed with his hon. Friend, but had to go back to the Treasury brief.
The Minister is departing from one of his clear principles in opposition—that of parity for the fleet in this country with others. Our major competitors have had access to European funding. How will the Minister establish parity for the fleet in this country with what fleets in other countries have received?

Mr. Morley: I cannot go back to what has happened in the past. In terms of the debate about the future structure of fisheries funds, negotiations and priorities, I have already made it clear in the Council of Ministers that I do not believe that subsidising the modernisation of fishing boats is necessarily the best way forward. That should not apply to any member state. There is a role for public finance, on which I will touch in a moment, but there are far more productive ways of using that money than modernising the fishing fleet.

Mrs. Ray Michie: First, may I thank the Minister for his kind words about the tragedy in my constituency, which I will convey to the folk on Iona?,lb/>
In talking about modernising the fleet, the Minister presumably means that we can go for new build and repairs. Does he agree that that would make a huge difference to the shipyards that we have lost, particularly in Scotland—including the Campbeltown shipyard in my constituency? We need to be building our own fishing boats.

Mr. Morley: I accept that, and I hope that those fishermen who have placed orders for new build and repairs—not necessarily within the UK—have taken note of what the hon. Lady has said.

Mr. Gill: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Morley: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I am sensitive about taking up too much of the House's time when many hon. Members wish to speak. I have been generous in taking interventions, and I hope that he will forgive me if I try to make progress.
I understand the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) made about the Treasury brief and Treasury priorities, but there is no point in denying that there are priorities, and that there is not a limitless pot of public money. Nor is there a magic bank account in Brussels waiting for us to use. Many of the EU funds are, in reality, money contributed by member states. As a net contributor to the EU budget—and despite the rebate arrangements—we pay, in effect, about 71p in every pound for any EU money spent in this country.
The comprehensive spending review, completed this summer, looked in great detail at all aspects of Government expenditure, and concluded that the priorities in the fisheries sector should be continuation of the existing infrastructure and vessel safety grants, together with a further £10.5 million for decommissioning in the fixed-gear segments over the next three years. Our priority is to add value.
In the year 1997–98, about £38 million was put into the fishing industry and fisheries-dependent areas from EU, central Government and regional government grants. These priorities extend to the period beyond the expiry of the current FIFG and PESCA schemes at the end of 1999. Future EU arrangement are under discussion in the context of the Commission's Agenda 2000 proposals, and we do not know what form they will finally take. We will consult the industry once detailed implementing proposals emerge. It would be wrong for me to allow a false expectation of grants for fleet renewal against the position that I have just set out. As I said in August, following the outcome of the comprehensive spending review, there are limits to what the taxpayer should be asked to support in the absence of a financial contribution from the industry itself.
I have referred to our priorities for fisheries policy and the future structure of the UK fleet. Effective enforcement has an essential role to play. The Government are committed to raising the standard of enforcement both at home and throughout the Community. As a result of the initiatives that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister took at Amsterdam and the action taken during our presidency, the December Fisheries Council will adopt important measures to strengthen monitoring, inspection and surveillance arrangements throughout the Community, leading to much greater co-operation and transparency, which I warmly welcome as a key objective.
Action at Community level is being reinforced by action at home, where we shall continue to devote considerable resources—about £24 million a year—to policing fishing activity in our waters and in our ports. Last month, I confirmed that robust action would be taken to deal with the problem of under-declared landings through the introduction of new controls, including designated ports, for vessels over 20 m.
Our monitoring of fishing activity will be further assisted once satellite monitoring comes into full effect from 1 January 2000. We recently awarded a contract for the development of the UK's monitoring system, which should be fully operational by the middle of next year.
I know that many are concerned that the industry is over-regulated, and the industry certainly made that point in our discussions today, but fishing is a highly complex activity, and some regulation is inescapable. I can assure the House that we will make every effort to restrict additional controls and costs to those that are essential for conserving fish stocks and safeguarding the best interests of fishermen. Let us be clear: honest fishermen have nothing to fear from the controls that we are introducing.
Many of the measures are long overdue, and I regret that many changes have to be introduced in a short period: the industry must think that they are coming thick and fast. Some of the measures should have been introduced many years ago, and we made it clear that we would take action on black fish, enforcement and other problems, some of which the industry has asked us to tackle.
In talks with the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and Northern Ireland organisations, I offered to set up a working party, on which the industry will be able to join officials to consider how to minimise the impact and

bureaucracy of the measures that we will have to introduce. We will work with the industry to ensure that the changes cause the minimum of inconvenience.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the working party have access to the Commissioner?

Mr. Morley: We are introducing national measures as a member state, so access to the Commissioner is not relevant. We will discuss how to apply the measures, and we have some flexibility on the detail of how that is done. We want to hear the industry's point of view so that we can minimise the impact.
We will not shrink from taking difficult decisions. At the beginning of this month, I announced a phased programme of action to link the future registration and licensing of fishing vessels to the declaration of maximum continuous or permanently derated engine power. We must tackle the deliberate under-declaration of engine power if measures to restrict fishing activity and conserve fish stocks are to succeed.
I have heard forceful arguments from those who consider that the measures go too far and from those who consider that they do not go far enough, but I believe that we now have a balanced and proportionate package of measures which should put an end to the under-declaration of engine power without causing long-term hardship for the industry.
We have also acted decisively to resolve the legacy of unresolved problems of quota hopping, which I know to be of concern to many hon. Members. With the agreement of the Commission, we announced in July a package of measures designed to ensure that UK fishing vessels maintain a real economic link with this country. The measures will bring greater benefits to our coastal communities without threatening inward investment in our industry. That is a good deal for the fishing industry, and will achieve much more than the pursuit of unachievable goals such as the removal of quota hoppers from the register.
The measures, combined with designated ports and satellite monitoring, are having an effect on quota hopping and on black fish landings, which have declined. I warmly welcome that. A further area of progress has been the introduction of fixed quota allocations that will take effect from 1 January next year. The new arrangements will create much greater certainty in the industry, and will eliminate the incentive to catch fish simply to maintain quota shares.
That initiative came from the industry itself, and I welcome that involvement, which is an example of how we can take ideas from and hold consultations with the industry and, if there is majority agreement, implement them. The next high-level meeting with the industry, which will be chaired by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, will take place on 3 March. We look forward to discussing an agenda proposed by the industry itself.
A great deal of work is still to be done. I am aware of the difficult problems facing our inshore fleet, whose operations are often restricted by factors such as weather conditions and the availability of fish on our inshore grounds. The vessels are hard hit when action has to be taken to close fisheries because quota allocations have been exhausted.
Following discussions with inshore fishermen, we are considering a range of options for improving the current quota management and licensing arrangements for the inshore fleet and I hope to be able to issue a consultative paper early in the new year, seeking views on the way forward. That initiative came up at a very constructive meeting in Hastings, organised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster).
I can assure my hon. Friend that we are pursuing all the points that were raised about ways of helping the inshore fleet with its quota management without imposing stops, which I accept cause real problems. The problem that I face as a Minister is that, once the fish stocks are exhausted, we have no option but to close the fishery; but we are looking for alternative methods that the inshore fleet may find helpful.
My hon. Friend may be interested to know that we are also investigating complaints about fishermen who have shortened their boats to get below the 10 m designation and then, allegedly, have lengthened them again. Action is in hand to identify the number of boats that fall into that category and to ensure that they comply. Let me make it clear that the owners of such boats face losing their licence and their livelihood.
It is unfortunate that, as in previous years, the Commission's proposals for total allowable catches and quotas to apply in 1999 have emerged very late in the day. I accept that criticism; we have drawn it to the attention of the Commission, and will do so again. Such lateness does not make it easy for any of us to prepare for the important decisions to be taken at the December Council; but to allow the fullest possible parliamentary scrutiny, we made available as much detail as possible before the formal proposals were published.

Mr. Wallace: Whatever became of multi-annual and multi-species TACs, which I think were agreed in 1992 but were never implemented? They may be a way of avoiding the huge swings that often happen.

Mr. Morley: I believe that there is a role for extending the number of stocks that are managed multi-annually. Of course, the stocks have to be sufficient to apply a multi-annual TAC. Some stocks are so low that it would be very difficult to do that at present. I accept the point, and we want to pursue it with the Commission. The multi-annual TAC on herring, for example, has been a great success, and we want to extend the system where appropriate.
There is no denying that, this year, deeper than usual cuts have been proposed in a number of TACs. To some extent, that reflects the more explicit application of a precautionary approach by the scientists of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, which has in some cases led to more cautious advice. But the blame cannot be laid at the door of scientists: the fact is that many of our fish stocks have deteriorated over recent years, and are now in a poor state.
There have been some welcome reductions in fishing mortality over the past couple of years, but too many stocks remain dependent on the strength of incoming year classes, so, when there is below-average recruitment, the stock size declines and TACs reduce. Irrespective of the application of the precautionary approach, substantial cuts in some TACs are, unfortunately, necessary to help to

rebuild and secure stocks for the future. The fishing industry recognises that action has to be taken if there is evidence that stocks are in decline.
Let me make it clear that the Government are committed to the precautionary approach as the basis for managing fish stocks. Indeed, we have advanced that argument on issues such as increased controls on industrial fishing. A more cautious approach in the shorter term will lead to significant benefits in the longer term as fish stocks grow in response to more sustainable fishing levels. The North sea herring stock, which has just been mentioned, provides a vivid example of how short-term restraint can lead to long-term gain. Severe reductions in catches and fishing effort were imposed on that fishery in 1996 to prevent the stock's collapse. The restrictive regime has been maintained, with the result that the stock size will soon be above safe levels, and is predicted to continue to increase substantially over the next couple of years.
We need further dialogue among fishermen, managers and scientists to refine and develop the application of the precautionary approach. If cuts are violent and too changeable, fishermen cannot plan, and find it hard to adapt. However, it is difficult to fault the concept in principle, and the fishing industry accepted at the meeting today that it had a role to play. Sensibly applied, the precautionary principle offers a sound way forward for fisheries management.
I know that fishermen are concerned about the extent of cuts in TACs proposed by the Commission, and I share their concern for a number of stocks. I am mindful of the need to take into account the social and economic effects on the industry of excessive year-on-year fluctuations in TACs. I met the leaders of the UK industry this afternoon and we had a full discussion about their concerns and priorities. I was able to assure them that, at the Fisheries Council this week, we will argue for the TACs proposed to be increased if that is compatible with the scientific advice and the conservation of stocks.
However, I emphasised the need for our approach to be realistic and responsible if we are not to undermine the recovery of stocks from some of the low levels that now exist. The fishermen at the meeting made several helpful and constructive points in relation to the negotiations on TACs, and I will do my best to address those points at the Fisheries Council.

Mr. Blizzard: Although it is proposed that the TACs for many species should be reduced, an increase is recommended for some species. Can my hon. Friend assure me that, in the negotiations in Brussels, he will resist any attempt to try to trade off one species against another, so that, for example, an increase in plaice, which is caught readily by Lowestoft fishermen, will not be traded off for an increase in another species? Will he assure me that he will stick to TACs based on scientific evidence?

Mr. Morley: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. There is good news on plaice for the fishing industry, in that the scientific advice has recommended an increase in the plaice TAC. I welcome that.
The Government's overall objective is to achieve sustainable management of fisheries so that stocks recover, fishermen's livelihoods are safeguarded and the


wider marine environment is conserved. A good start has been made in the 18 months or so since we came to office. We are committed to providing the conditions for a prosperous, stable and sustainable fishing industry.
We have tackled our priorities in a way that the previous Government could not. I do not blame my predecessors as Fisheries Minister, because they tried to do their best for the industry, but they found it impossible to advance the case for the British fishing industry against the background of a party and Government riven by splits on Europe. They were paralysed when taking decisions and dealing with the outstanding problems with which we have had to deal in the short time we have been in office. Unfortunately, there is little evidence that the splits that so disabled the previous Government have improved in the present Conservative party.
I have made it clear that, when tough decisions have to be taken on fisheries management, the Government will take them, but we will ensure that the long-term future of the fishing industry is maintained, that we have sustainable fisheries and that our actions—after consulting the fishing industry at every opportunity—are taken for the long-term benefit of the industry. We have seen some progress. This year, the black fish problem has declined, prices have improved for most of the fishing industry, and it has been a good year for many sections of the fleet. We want to ensure that that prosperity continues next year and for the future.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: The Minister was right to remind us that, although this debate is taking place before the meeting of the Fisheries Council, it has traditionally been an opportunity to discuss the fishing industry in its entirety. I commend him for touching on a number of points that are clearly of great interest to Members on both sides of the House. However, I did not think much of his penultimate paragraph, and I can understand why he kept his worst point to almost the end. I shall deal with it in a moment.
The Minister was also right to remind the House what a dangerous industry fishermen work in. In some ways, it is almost an anachronism, with fatalities every year. In 1997, the report of the marine accidents investigation branch shows that 29 fishermen died. Because I represent a west country seat, I remember incidents that affected the west country, including, for example, the loss of the Margaretha Maria. Only last week, a fisherman died in Brixham and, in June, five Scottish fishermen died off the coast of Denmark when their ship was cut in half by a German freight vessel. Fishing is a dangerous industry and the Minister was right to preface his remarks by drawing our attention to that fact.
The Minister was reported in the press as having described the proposed cuts as "ferocious". After examination of the proposals, it appears that they will not be quite as ferocious as we feared, but the Minister was honest enough to admit that the cuts suggested under the precautionary principle will be deep. I shall deal with that point at some length.
This is the first time that I have spoken in a fisheries debate from the Front Bench, but I have spoken from the Back Benches on several occasions. Since holding this

portfolio, I have made it my business to go round and see the fishing industry and find out what fishermen's concerns are. Sometimes, their concerns are precisely what I would have expected, and sometimes other issues come up.
The industry has raised several matters of deep concern to it. The first is the matter of the working time directive, which is a wholly inappropriate mechanism to be applied to the United Kingdom fishing industry. Originally, the directive allowed for an exemption, which was clearly right, but that exemption is now under threat because, when the Government adopted the principle of the social chapter, they sold the pass on their ability to argue that some industries cannot function under such a directive. Jim Porters, the widely respected member of the South West Fish Producers Organisation, said:
The implications of this Directive will have far reaching effects. Owners of larger vessels will have difficulty finding crews prepared to work strict patterns of working hours. Smaller vessels will be unable to operate and comply with the requirements. Where there are 2 men working, compulsory rest periods would be impossible.
I think that it is quite clear that, if the working time directive goes ahead in anything approaching its present shape, share fishing as we currently understand it in the United Kingdom will simply cease.

Mr. Morley: I wish to update the hon. Gentleman on the progress that we are making on the working time directive. We accept that it does not reflect the patterns of work of share fishermen. The hon. Gentleman will know that the negotiations on the working time directive are not a matter for my Department, but I understand that the Commission has accepted the arguments and will, for example, exempt share fishermen from the four days compulsory holiday. The Commission is beginning to appreciate the argument that the share fishermen's working patterns are not compatible with the working time directive.

Mr. Nicholls: I am grateful to the Minister for making that point. For a moment, I thought that he was going to avail himself of the well-known "not me guy" defence. However, as far it went, what he had to say made interesting hearing, and clearly we shall want to study the detail in due course.
Another major concern, which the Minister touched on, is the rising cost of licences and track records. Prices that are already sky-high are given a further twist with the introduction of new rules to combat under-declaration of engine power. That will force many fishermen to buy extra licence units to match their real engine power. The prices for such units are spiralling far out of reach of ordinary fishermen, and fears are mounting that the fleet will rapidly fall into the hands of big companies.
There are also fears that the fleet will stagnate because so few fishermen will be able to afford the licences and no one will be able to build new boats or modernise existing stock. Clearly, a slump in building and modernisation affects the industry as a whole. Time will not allow me to deal in detail with the question of safety, but problems often arise with older fishing boats. Such factors must be taken into account when we consider the lack of modernisation of the fleet. In addition, fishermen have expressed to me their grave anxiety that speculators will move in and buy up quotas before renting them back to fishermen at inflated prices.
The Minister was fair enough to mention the real concern about policing and enforcement in the United Kingdom, and about the lack of overall uniformity and transparency among our European partners. We are aware that a European Union inspection force will be established to try and achieve that uniformity, but, although I do not for a moment doubt the Minister's good faith in relying on that, I do not share what I took to be his optimism. The cultural differences between the UK on the one hand and France and—especially—Spain on the other mean that it is difficult to have any great hope that greater uniformity and transparency will be achieved. Frankly, I doubt it.
The crushing weight of bureaucracy on the industry at times leaves individual fishermen feeling deeply depressed. The effects of that bureaucracy and regulation—and we all accept that there has to be some regulation—are so oppressive and burdensome that for some fishermen the problem has been the last straw and they have left the industry as a result. No hon. Member could regard that with anything other than extreme concern.

Mr. Steen: Is my hon. Friend aware that thousands of new rules and regulations come in from Europe every year? I am a member of the Select Committee on Deregulation, which has not managed to deregulate one new regulation. Is that because the Minister has not fed into the system opportunities to reduce the regulatory mechanism on our hard-pressed fishermen?

Mr. Nicholls: I shall answer for many things, but not for the Minister. There is clearly something in what my hon. Friend says. The industry is consumed by regulation. For reasons that I shall explain, the common fisheries policy is not a suitable vehicle for the protection of fish. It is not acceptable in terms of conservation and, as far as fishermen are concerned, it does not do the job.
I was pleased to hear the Minister address an idea that sounds almost comically bizarre but which I know to be true. Certain boats are reduced to less than 20 m in length by having bits cut off, then those bits are bolted on again afterwards. Interestingly, I received a letter from John Gale of Folkestone Trawlers Ltd. He said that, in September, the Minister told a meeting of fishermen in Hastings that
he would address the serious problem of over 10 metre vessels fishing with under 10 metre licences.
I am sure that Mr. Gale will be as pleased as we to hear that that problem will be dealt with.

Mr. Morley: It is under way.

Mr. Nicholls: The Minister says that the matter is under way. We look forward, in due course, to hearing more detail about that also.
I want to ask the Minister about fixed quota allowances and their legality. The Government now admit that vessels have been fishing during the reference period whose horsepower and vessel capacity units were under-declared with respect to their licences. The licence states categorically that it is invalidated if such details differ from those entered on the licence itself. It has been put to me on a number of occasions that, as the vessels involved were fishing illegally during the reference period, the

validity of the FQAs must be brought into question. That strikes me as a fair point. If the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) is unable to deal with it when he winds up the debate, I should be grateful if he could write to me about it.
I am anxious that other hon. Members should be able to contribute to the debate, but the matters that I have raised are among the most important and salient points that people right across the industry have brought to my attention.
Initially, the Minister was quoted as describing the tax and quota proposals as "ferocious", and that has not been denied. However, I am afraid that there is a ritual element to debates such as this. The Minister of the day, whoever it is, allows it to bruited abroad that the quotas will be dreadful and ferocious. In due course, the Minister goes to Europe and battles away valiantly, with the result that he returns with a deal that, rather than being awfully dreadful, is merely dreadful. A great triumph is then proclaimed. I have been in politics long enough that, in opposition, I recognise that ritual as clearly as I did when I was a Minister.
The quota system is wholly unsatisfactory. We cannot begin to get to grips with what to do about it unless we acknowledge where it started. The problems are endemic to the origins of the common fisheries policy, and stem directly from the arrangements announced to the House as long ago as 13 December 1971. On that morning, a principle was agreed in Europe to ensure that the six original members of the European Community were able to have access to our waters. The principle was conceded that there should be equal access to a common resource.
I wish to make it absolutely clear that not for one moment do I impugn the motives of those Ministers at the time who came back with that deal and thought that it was right and proper, but if politicians cannot review matters with the benefit of hindsight, they are not making use of the tools available to them. However the solution may have looked all those years ago in 1971, it looks different now. Any deal based on the principle of equal access to a common resource lies at the root of the problems that bedevil the industry to this day, as—apart from a few derogations here and there—it meant that what used to be our well conserved waters could be fished out by our partners.
We have to be honest about that, and I accept that that honesty must come more from Conservative Members than others. Unless we are prepared to point out what happened, we cannot get to grips with the circumstance in which we find ourselves. The effect of that deal means today that, although Britain owns four fifths of what is now the European Union common fisheries stocks, it is left with just two fifths by volume and only one sixth by value. That is the measure of what has happened to our fishing industry since 1971.
What was represented at the time as a policy designed in the interests of conservation has proved to be a conservation disaster. The policy was based on the ludicrous proposition that fish stocks can be conserved by throwing dead fish back into the sea. That proposition is implicit in the quota system and no quota system that resembles in any way what operates under the common fisheries policy can be devised without it.
The situation is appalling. If time allowed, I could give the House a great many figures to show how bad it is, but I emphasise that the figures that I am about to give are not the fault of fishermen. When I talk about discards and the monstrosity that is involved when millions of dead fish are thrown back into the sea, I am talking about a failure of the political process, not of the fishing industry.
It has been estimated that, this year, about 45 million saithe will be caught wrongly because the quota will have been exceeded. What will happen to them? There are two possibilities. They will either be subject to an illegal landing and dealt with as black fish— we can all condemn breaches of the law, but fishermen consider that the moral point is that the fish are already dead—or the fish will simply be thrown back into the sea.
It has already been noted that it is all very well to speak of designated ports and about extra efforts to ensure that illegal landings are stopped. However, the consequence is that more dead fish are thrown back into the sea. If that were not bad enough, the common fisheries policy institutionalises the legal catching of fish that have not even reached the age of reproductive maturity. Indeed, the Ministry has stated:
The large majority of fish discarded by fishermen are small and of low or no commercial value.
Yet, at a meeting of the Fisheries Council on 30 October, the United Kingdom voted with all the member states except Denmark to reduce the minimum landing size of three species—hake, plaice and megrim—to well below breeding size. On that occasion, it appears that the Government's reasoning for the reduction was that they recognised that it was wasteful to require the discarding of fish that were marketable and which, in practice, were caught as part of a mixed species.
Anyone who wonders whether there is any validation for the idea—or any other way to go about it—that one can legally catch fish stocks that have not reached the age of reproductive capacity, could do no better than read the 1995–96 report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, No. 25. The Committee was discussing European Union minimum landing sizes and fish maturity and said:
For many species of fish the minimum permitted landing size is set at or about the length at which 50 per cent. or more of the stock is likely to be mature. For some, however, the minimum landing size is such that well over half of the fish caught will be immature. This is a particular problem with species including cod, saithe and pollack.
That is the position. Under our system, under-age fish can be legally caught and, if the quota has been exceeded, simply discarded and thrown back into the sea. One only has to consider the effects of throwing millions upon millions of dead fish back into the sea every year to realise what we are dealing with.

Mr. Morley: No one disputes the wastefulness of throwing marketable fish back into the sea, but that is a result of quota management and fisheries conservation. If the hon. Gentleman does not like quota management, what is his alternative? For example, is it days at sea?

Mr. Nicholls: That is a fair question, and I will deal with it in my speech. In the space of a few seconds the

hon. Gentleman just talked of conservation, but noted that it is based on dead fish. Frankly, that approach is endemic in the policy. The common fisheries policy cannot be run as if dead fish were a regrettable necessity, as has been said in an intervention—on that occasion, the Minister agreed. The harder that one bears down on quotas, the greater the rate of discard, leaving fishermen with the alternative of black landing or tossing the fish back into the sea.
We can examine the effect of the proposals on the fishing industry, area by area, and other hon. Members may well do so. As I come from the west country, I shall deal purely with the situation in area VII, the western waters, to allow other hon. Members time to speak. In areas VIIb-k there would be a reduction of 22 per cent. for cod; in area VIId, a reduction of 20 per cent. for sole; and in areas Vhf and g a reduction of 18 per cent. for plaice. In the Bristol channel, that will mean a reduction in catches from 1,100 to 900 tonnes. The industry has suggested to me that the reductions in the Bristol channel catches do not seem to be driven by any particular principle, but are merely a macho gesture towards the precautionary approach.
The problem is that the situation is not all bad. An increase is proposed for area VIId. However, increasing the plaice catch automatically affects sole, as both will be caught at the same time, so more sole will be brought up and, once again, fishermen will be in the business of returning them dead to the sea or trying a black landing. I can do no better to illustrate how appalling the cuts would be for the west country, if they go ahead in anything approaching their present form, than to give the following example.
A French and an English boat could be fishing side by side in the English channel. The English boat brings up plaice that is in excess of its quota, so they are thrown back, dead. The French boat beside it can catch and land the plaice legally.

Mr. Morley: If it is within the quota.

Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman says that the French would be within their quota, and that is so. I am coming to the quota figures. The fact is that the west country has a dreadful deal, as my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) knows even better than I.

Mr. Morley: Who negotiated it?

Mr. Nicholls: The Minister is bleating from a sedentary position, but as I said at the beginning of my remarks, to some extent Fisheries Ministers from both sides of the House have found themselves in a not dissimilar position. The point is not merely to bleat from a sedentary position, "Who did it? It's not my fault, guy," but to face up to what is happening honestly and come up with a proposal that may offer some way forward.
I was revealing the fact that those two boats could be sailing side by side, but in area VIIb-k, the French would have a cod allocation of 76 per cent. and the English, an allocation of 8 per cent; for plaice, it would be 54 per cent. for the French and 29 per cent. for the English. In area VIId and e, there would be a 52 per cent. quota for the French for sole, but 23 per cent. for the English. In areas VIIb-k, there would be a 60 per cent. allocation for


the French for whiting and 11 per cent. for the English. For hake, it would be 45 per cent. for the French and 18 per cent. for the English; and, for megrim, the allocation would be 36 per cent. for the French and 14 per cent. for the English. That is the effect that the cuts and the policy would have on fishing in the west country. It is a dire prospect.
The effect of effort limitation on the west country has been mentioned and other hon. Members may take it up. The United Kingdom fleet has a small hangover from MAGP III, which is added to the cuts of MAGP IV. That beam trawl segment is split between the North sea and area VII for the purposes of MAGP IV cuts. The combination of those cuts will amount to about 11 per cent. in western waters. The south-west fish producer fleet spends 13 per cent. of its time in the North sea. That effort must be cut by 21 per cent. The remaining 87 per cent. has to be cut by 11 per cent. Although the south-west fleet effort must be cut by 12.3 per cent., over four years that amounts to about 3 per cent. a year. That fleet has great economic significance for the south-west and catches about half the English white fish catch, but it is expected to absorb the effects of another cut in its prime source of income, Dover sole. That position is unsustainable.
The Parliamentary Secretary referred somewhat speedily—I can well understand why—to the fact that fishermen and scientists sometimes do not agree on the science of the matter. Over and again, if one really talks to the fishermen who are out there catching fish and whose livelihoods depend on it, they say that their experience is different from that of the scientists. One only has to look at some of the comments of scientists who have been putting their views to Ministers, which have been reported in recent days.
To understand that, one only has to look at some of the recently reported comments of scientists who obviously have something to say and have been putting their views to Ministers. Dr. Euan Dunn, a marine policy officer at the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, said:
We regard this as a watershed in fisheries management, a real sea-change. It may change the boom and bust cycle.
You bet it will change the boom and bust cycle. I do not know where Dr. Dunn has been in recent times, but there will be no boom, and bust will be the order of the day. He goes on to conclude:
Fishermen are certainly going to have to tighten their belts.
I should like to meet a fisherman who has any belt-tightening left to do. After telling fishermen to tighten their belts, Dr. Dunn adds:
But they should see better catches and bigger fish in possibly as little as five years.
I do not mean to use parliamentary privilege to pick on a humble scientist, but if I or Dr. Dunn were to be told, "We might be able pay your salary in five years' time, with a bit of luck," we might conclude that we would not be around to draw it.
Considering the basis on which the science has accumulated, remarks such as Dr. Dunn's certainly make one think. What confidence can one have in figures that do not contain an accurate estimate of the amount of fish brought up from the deep? I can do no better than to quote from Michael Wigan, who is a well-respected writer on fisheries matters. He says:
A scientifically led fishery, to which the CFP aspires, requires solid data. In the CRP the data is not in the least bit solid.

He continues:
Illegal landings are a bane of the CFP, or any fishery which aspires to scientific management. They were reckoned in 1996 to be around 40 per cent. of all North Sea catches.
He concludes by asking:
If the take is relative guesswork, how can the forecasts be accurate?
The fishermen to whom I talk have no confidence whatsoever in the science of supply. Time does not allow me to go into the subject, but hon. Members need only consider the gadoid outburst in the North sea during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, when the fishermen's estimate of what was going on was proved right and the scientists' estimates were wildly out. It is asking too much of fishermen to ask them to accept that the scientists are always right. Fishermen tell me, and I agree, that if the scientific community took a little more regard of their experience at sea, we might be in a better position to make progress.
If we are to have any fish left in British waters, or any British fishermen left to fish those fish in British waters, we need an approach that is radically different from simply trying to operate the common fisheries policy, which has been fundamentally flawed from its inception.

Mr. David Drew: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman's speech. I am intrigued by the fact that he and his hon. Friends have not tabled an amendment to the motion. Why is that?

Mr. Nicholls: The motion is a take-note motion; that is what the Government are asking the House to do. I wanted to listen to what the Minister had to say and so discover not only what his negotiating tactics were, but whether he could offer any real ideas about how to make progress in future. I did the Minister the courtesy of listening to his speech, but all I heard was a defence of the indefensible, as he said that he would do the best he could with a thoroughly unsatisfactory system, but that he would not make any attempt to analyse the root causes of why the system is so bad, or propose anything that would address the problems.
We need a radically different approach. We need to bring back under national control our own fishing grounds, with sensible bilateral agreements and recognition of the historic rights of other countries—[Interruption.] Now we see the true face of the Minister and the depth of his commitment: the moment it is suggested that he should adopt a tough negotiating stance in Europe, he has not got the will to stand up. Until we bring our waters back under national control, be that achieved through zonal management, coastal management, or some other way, we shall be faced year after year with cuts that wreck what is left of the British fishing industry and do absolutely nothing to foster conservation.

Mr. Morley: I am disappointed in the hon. Gentleman. His solution to quota management is to repatriate the fisheries policy. That policy is subject to a veto by other member states, so that is hardly realistic. Norway has control of its fisheries management, but still applies quota management measures. That brings me back to the point I made earlier: in any form of fishery, there has to be some management, so what is his alternative to quota


management? An exclusive fisheries policy is not achievable in the way that he suggests, so to raise it as a possibility misleads fisherman. In addition, it offers no solutions to the real problems of fisheries policy. What is his alternative?

Mr. Nicholls: There we have it—the authentic voice of the Labour party. The part of that intervention that matters was the part when the Minister said, "We can't do anything about it, because we do not have a veto." What he was actually saying is, "We can't do anything about it, because Europe won't let us." We saw no determination on the part of the Minister to tell Europe, courteously and carefully, "We shall not allow this situation to continue." That is why I say to him that, far from scaring the fishing industry, a policy of bringing back under national state control our fishing policy and our fishing stocks—[Interruption.] The Minister can barrack and heckle as much as he wants, but he will have to listen to what I say, even if he does not like it.

Mr. Blizzard: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Nicholls: I shall deal with the organ grinder first.
My suggestion does not scare fishermen; it offers them some hope that a truly dreadful situation can be dealt with. We have to bring fisheries policy back under national control, so that we are responsible for conserving our own fishing stocks and making our own decisions.

Mr. Wallace: rose—

Mr. Nicholls: I see that there is another federalist in the Chamber. I will give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman in a moment so that he can say how Britain cannot possibly stand up to Europe or make progress in this area.
The Minister asked, in effect, whether that right will be ceded voluntarily. Of course the answer is no. If we turn to the Europeans and say, "Do you mind if we take back the management of our fishing grounds?", they will say, "No, that is not on". The Government must have the political will to tell our European partners that we cannot go on like this.

Mr. Blizzard: When the Conservatives were in government they tried exactly the same tactics with beef. The beef ban got them nowhere. Why does the hon. Gentleman think that any Government would be able to adopt the same approach successfully with fish?

Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman has not noticed that we are dealing with fish, not beef.
I do not think for one moment that a Labour Government would be successful in making such an approach to Europe. They are not prepared to stand up to Europe and say that certain demands and conditions must be met.

Mr. Gill: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and I congratulate him on saying some things that have wanted saying for a long time. Is my hon. Friend aware that he is not alone in those views? Last year,

the shadow Foreign Secretary, our right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), said:
There are several areas where the EU is exercising powers which could be devolved to the member states.
He continued:
Another candidate for repatriation is fisheries policy … Fishing grounds out to 200 miles or the median line could be brought back under national control, with sensible bilateral agreements and recognition of the historic rights of other countries.

Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend is right: it can be done. However, it requires an effort of will to bring it about.
The Minister put his finger on the problem without realising it when he pointed out that his Government will not make that effort of will. That is not my prediction: I am not being unkind to the Labour party when I say that it will not make that effort of will, because it has shown that it will not do so.
The Minister referred, rather unwisely, to quota hopping. The history of quota hopping in recent times is instructive. When the previous Government were in office, they stressed that they would not sign the Amsterdam treaty until that practice was reformed. They made it clear that no progress would be made at Amsterdam until quota hopping was dealt with. The previous Government said:
The IGC won't come to a successful conclusion until we are satisfied that among our other objectives the problem of quota hopping is resolved satisfactorily.
What was the hon. Gentleman's response at that time?
Did he say, "No, that is completely impossible; we cannot possibly talk about quota hopping in that way to our partners?" No, he did not. The hon. Gentleman was not the only one commenting on the situation. The then Leader of the Opposition, the present Prime Minister, was asked whether he would adopt a similar position at Amsterdam if he were in office. He said:
We certainly have not ruled out holding up IGC business in order to get the right changes to fishing policy in the British interest … Where Britain's interests are at stake, we are perfectly prepared to be isolated. Of course we are."—[Official Report, 9 June 1998; Vol. 313, c. 969–970.]
The point is not that the Government went to Amsterdam and failed, but that they did not even try. Instead of doing what he had said he would do only weeks before in opposition, the Prime Minister and the Government gave in.
Instead of making it clear to Europe that the Government would stand by the interests of British fishermen, the Prime Minister entered into an exchange of correspondence with Jacques Santer. It was a case of "Dear Tony" and "Dear Jacques". An argument was constructed off the back of that correspondence that quota hopping had been dealt with. When the Prime Minister tried to address the issue domestically and exploit it, Jacques Santer issued a reprimand by saying that nothing in the exchange of correspondence would prevent a challenge to the European Court if quota hopping were dealt with on the basis of economic effort, which it is not.
A number of criteria must be taken into account if quota hopping is dealt with in accordance with that exchange of correspondence. The Spanish are on record as saying that they reserve the right to challenge that, but it is possible to stand up for our position; we said what we would do, and they agreed that it could be done.

Mr. Wallace: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and he has not yet answered the critical


question. If we had a national fisheries conservation policy, what would be his management tool, given that he has ruled out quota management? How would he manage conservation in our waters even with a national policy?

Mr. Nicholls: I am not ruling out quota management at all. If we are responsible for managing our policy and conserving our stocks and if decisions are made by Parliament, there is a far better chance of achieving conservation. It would be incredible if we tried to work for ever on the principle that there should be equal access to fish in British waters.

Mr. Townend: If our partners in Europe, who have pillaged our fish, refused to agree to our proposals and vetoed them, as hon. Members have suggested they very well might, should not the House amend the European Communities Act 1972 to regain control of fishing in our national waters so that we can have a strong fishing industry, such as those in Norway or Iceland?

Mr. Nicholls: It is sometimes suggested that the House has lost the ability to amend the 1972 Act. As a lawyer, I say that that is wrong, and lawyers who are a great deal more eminent than me have reached the same conclusion. My hon. Friend asked a straightforward question and I shall give him a straightforward answer—yes, it would be possible to amend the Act. However, there is no reason why it should come to that.
When we come back into office and are in a position to find out what is the precise state of the common fisheries policy, we shall make it clear that we have a number of irreducible demands that we expect to be met. We shall be as resolute in demanding and obtaining those requirements as Baroness Thatcher was many years ago when she insisted on the initial rebate. The Labour party told us at the time that it was simply impossible to go to Europe and insist on that rebate. When the Europeans believed that they were faced with a Government who were prepared to stand by their principles, they conceded the rebate. It would be the same in this case.

Mr. Salmond: A few moments ago, the hon. Gentleman mocked an RSPB scientist for telling fishermen to wait four or five years before there was a change. How many years does he estimate fishermen will have to wait before the Conservative party forms an Administration?

Mr. Nicholls: For once, I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman. It would be in the interests of the country and the fishing community if the Government admitted that they were wrong, went away and let us take over. I cannot envisage that happening, but I agree this far with the hon. Gentleman—there is not the slightest chance of the fishing community getting the deal that it needs on the basis of what we have heard tonight. That will not happen until a Conservative Government are returned, therefore—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. There is far too much background noise in the Chamber, which is unfair to the hon. Member who is addressing the House.

Mr. Nicholls: Therefore, as I was about to say, the sooner a Conservative Government are returned, the better.
The Minister sought almost to explain away the question of territorial waters and the 12-mile limit and said that, as far as relative stability is concerned, that limit did not automatically lapse. We could have an argument about that, but I accept that we need not have it this evening. He admitted that the effect of article 14(2) of document 3760/92 was that, without a fresh derogation, the protection of the 12-mile limit will lapse at one minute past midnight in 2003. There is no doubt about that, and I see that the Minister is nodding. The line that he takes, in a very bright and breezy way, is, "There's no problem. We're bound to get a unanimous decision; everyone is in favour of it." However, everyone is not in favour.
If the Minister studies the record and stops talking so glibly, he will find that, when the Spaniards are fighting for what they want, they drive a very hard bargain. One only has to remember the way they behaved in 1994 when their consent was being sought to the enlargement of the Community—they insisted on being given extra fishing rights then as a condition of their co-operation.
There is not the slightest doubt that, if there is to be unanimity on giving us a new derogation, the Minister is going to have to pay a heavy price for it. It would have been a great deal better if, instead of pretending that a unanimous vote was a mere formality, he had told us what price he expects to pay, or, indeed, what price he may already have had to pay.
Of course, the reason that the Minister needs unanimous agreement, and that he will pay whatever price is necessary to get it, is that if the derogation is achieved only by a majority—whether a simple or a qualified majority—the countries that disagree will say that it is a discriminatory regulation, and they will challenge it before the European Court of Justice. No one knows what the effect of such an application would be, but it follows as night follows day that, if the derogation is extended without unanimity, it will discriminate against those who have not agreed to it, and a challenge can then be made in the European Court of Justice. It is clear that the Minister is not going to run that risk for one moment.
It comes down to this: what we needed to hear this evening was not just a statement by the Minister to the effect that he was going to do his level best in Europe, but that he had some understanding of why it is that, year after year, we find ourselves in this position. He had nothing to say about that, but there is a way forward. We need a Government who are prepared to be absolutely resolute in demanding what is necessary in the interests of their countrymen and in the interests of conservation. The Government need the sort of resolution that we showed when we got the original rebate. The Minister would have done the fishing industry some good had he been prepared to tackle that. Instead, when he was offered a way of ensuring that real progress could be made, all he could do was sit and jeer.

Mr. Frank Doran: It is always a pleasure to take part in the annual fisheries debate, which seems to have acquired certain traditions—we are getting North sea weather and the traditional approach from the Conservative party, now in opposition. The Conservatives are rewriting history, pretending that they were not in government for 18 years. Judging by what we heard from the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), we can


take some comfort from the fact that it is very unlikely that he will ever be in government. He will have to go and swing his handbag somewhere else.
It is a matter of concern that this is the one occasion in the year that we have the opportunity to speak about fisheries. Those of us who represent fishing constituencies take the issue seriously. Looking at the clock, I think it likely that we will be lucky to have 45 minutes for Back Benchers' contributions. The rant from the hon. Member for Teignbridge took well over 40 minutes, which does a disservice to the fishing communities that want to be heard.
I welcome the Minister's important statement. He spelled out the tremendous progress that has been made in the 18 months since our party came to power. We are providing a stable framework for the industry, and real advances have been made in the United Kingdom and in Europe. Our policy of constructive engagement, rather than shouting from the sidelines, is paying dividends.

Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman says that real advances have been made in the past 18 months. Would he care to list them? What advances have been made in terms of the industry's profitability and production and the way the fishermen are being treated?

Mr. Doran: I shall not list them, because enough time has already been spent on such questions, but I shall give the hon. Gentleman one example. The hon. Member for Teignbridge spoke about the crisis in the fishing industry. I do not know what the industry is like in his constituency, but the catchers in my area are happy with the high prices that they now get on the quayside for their fish. One reason for that is that we now have a proper management policy, under which black fish is not the commodity that it was; it has virtually disappeared in my part of the country. The fishing industry now receives proper prices for its product.
The Minister acknowledged that the industry is disappointed by the cuts in TAC that are likely to be negotiated later this week. In the north-east, we are concerned in particular about the cut in the haddock quota, but a combination of enforcement and changes in market conditions has virtually eradicated the problem of black fish from north-east Scotland.
Although we all have to accept—certainly I accept—that the only way forward at the moment is the precautionary approach, we are worried that the scientists are being far too cautious in their approach to quotas. One of the issues that concerns me most is discards.

Mr. Gill: Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise the tremendous contradiction between stopping the landing of black fish and increasing the volume of fish that is dumped back dead into the sea? Can he reconcile himself to the fact that less than half the fish caught by fishermen reach the plate? Is that a regime that he wants to go on supporting.

Mr. Doran: I do not think that any of us is happy with that situation, but we need a system that regulates the fishing industry and leads to a sustainable fishing industry for the longer term. At the moment, the quota system is

the best we have. The way to improve the system is not to abolish it, which seems to be Conservative policy—despite the fact that the Conservative Government worked with that system for 18 years—but to ensure that it is properly managed. It is managing the fishing industry that is important.
Several positive developments were mentioned by the Minister. I do not need to repeat them, but there are a couple of worrying signs to which I should like to draw attention. One is the aging fleet. The Minister dealt with that, but it is a problem that needs to be tackled. Also, we have a major problem with the boom-and-bust nature of the industry, which is linked to quotas.
Fishing is a difficult business to run, no matter what part of the industry people are in. All the problems of other businesses are there, with the additional uncertainty over the availability from year to year of the primary product.
We have had several years of quotas based on scientific advice, and we have heard some controversy about the differences between the industry and the scientists, but for the long-term interests of our fishing industry, I would like us to move towards the goal of a sustainable fishing industry and also try to achieve some stability in quotas and TACs, so that the industry can start to do some long-term planning with a degree of certainty, which it does not seem to be able to do at the moment. I hope that that is part of Government policy; I would like to hear the Minister's reply on it.
Another worrying development is what seems to be the growing market in quotas. Some vessels are trading their quotas, or parts of them, like any other commodity. We appreciate the value that those licences and quotas have, but it was recently reported in the Scottish press that the quota owned by the inheritor of the licences that were operated by the Silvery Seas, another boat that was involved in a tragedy earlier this year, was sold for £5.5 million.
I have no way of knowing whether those press reports were accurate. The people to whom I have spoken in the industry cannot tell me, but that creates serious problems for the industry—one in particular: how are we going to attract new entrants to the industry if they have to face that hurdle? It will become an industry that is controlled by big business. It will not be the traditional industry that we all grew up with. Anyone whose parent does not operate an existing licence and quota is likely to find it virtually impossible to break into the industry.
My main constituency concern is for the other side of the industry: the fish processing sector. There are several problems. One of the paradoxes of the industry is that, when one side is doing well, the other tends to do not so well. In the past year, catchers have had a good year, with reasonable supplies of fish and good prices at the quayside. Reduced quotas will probably mean increased prices. Profit margins will be maintained, but the picture in the processing sector is a little less encouraging.
When the quayside prices that are paid by processors are high, they cannot always be passed on to customers. There are particular difficulties for businesses that are tied into larger supermarket chains. The typical contract does not allow for price flexibility. When quay prices rise, the supermarket still expects its product at the stipulated price, regardless of market conditions. I hope that, in the


not too distant future, we will be able to have a full debate in the House about the serious effects that our large supermarket chains are having on the food industry.
The industry has only recently gone through difficult adjustments to the new hygiene regulations. Most of the larger companies were able to make the necessary investments, but many of the smaller operators fell out of the industry. The new hygiene standards are good for the industry because they help to improve the quality of the product, but the transition has been painful for many. A number of other European directives, all introduced by the previous Government, are in the process of being implemented by the industry. They include the packaging directive and the directive dealing with veterinary charges.
One of the most pressing problems that has been brought to me recently is the waste water regulation and the impact that it will have on the industry. Again, it is the result of the implementation of a European directive. We can all support the principle of polluter pays, but the problem for high-volume water users, such as the fish processing industry, is that, in a short time, they will face large increases in water charges.
I met my local water authority last week. It is still in public hands and it is taking a sympathetic approach to the industry. It said that there are 82 users in the industry with water accounts over £5,000 a year. They are facing increases in their charges of almost 24 times what they pay now, depending on the strength and volume of their effluent. That is a serious problem for a relatively poor industry. I hope that the Minister will be able to say something about how he expects the industry to face those charges.
I have raised several issues and I have cantered through my contribution because I am mindful of the fact that other hon. Members want to speak. I want to tell my hon Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, and Lord Sewel, that it is widely recognised, certainly in my fishing community, that they have done a tremendous amount of work in taking the fishing industry forward. There is more stability in the industry; it now has a future; and I congratulate them both on what they have done.

Mr. Andrew George: I beg to move, as an amendment to the motion, at the end to add:
recalls that the previous Government added to the burden of UK fishing communities, missed crucial opportunities to develop and enhance the industry, failed to take decisive action to reduce the loss of British fish quota to "flag of convenience" vessels and brought forward Spanish access to western waters by six years; welcomes the forthcoming reform of the Common Fisheries Policy as an opportunity to establish a decentralised system based on the regional management of fisheries which should aim to reduce the needs for discards and improve the accuracy of the scientific base for decision making, ensure equality of monitoring and enforcement across the EU, protect the six and 12 mile fishing limits and develop a policy to encourage low-impact and sustainable fishing methods; and recognises that the fishing industry should continue to be exempt from the EU Working Time Directive.
It is surprising that there is no amendment from Her Majesty's Official Opposition. However, listening to the 42 minutes of entertainment and lack of any policy content from the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), I can see why there is no amendment. It is clear that the Opposition have signed up as members of the Flat Earth Society.
In an attempt politely to compliment the Minister, I once said that he had done better than the Ministers responsible for fishing in the previous Government. I then realised that it was a little like damning him with faint praise. Merely having "done better" would imply that he had perhaps fallen asleep on the job or had been plotting the industry's downfall.
I am not here to praise the Minister, because he has no room for complacency. I discovered that earlier this year when I accompanied him on a visit to fishermen from Newlyn in my constituency. He was not pelted with paint, flour or fish guts or threatened with being barricaded in the fishermen's mission; he was merely shouted at and harangued and told precisely where to stick his fishing policy. He could easily misconstrue that as a Cornish fishing port's equivalent of a ringing endorsement. It is true that their response was a little muted on that occasion, but I think that they were giving the Minister the benefit of the doubt on his first official visit.
In the few minutes that I have—I want as many Back Benchers to contribute as possible—I wish to deal with quota setting, the meeting later this week, the reform of the common fisheries policy, sustainable fishing methods, the working time directive and the problems of meeting compliance costs in the industry.
If we are to spend £36 million on fisheries research, equivalent to about 7 per cent. of the value of UK fish landed, we have a right to expect something better for our money. Fisheries stock research is still an imprecise science and appears unable to help—or is restrained from helping—politicians, Ministers and the industry to plan the stock management over the medium term, say a five-year period. Having failed to take advice gradually to introduce a precautionary approach to the setting of total allowable catches in previous years, we are now faced with the prospect of draconian cuts in 1999.
The Liberal Democrats favour the early introduction of a precautionary approach to the setting of quotas. If the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds—which was mentioned earlier in the debate—is right in its pre-debate briefing that TACs have become a "target for brinkmanship", we must have a cushion allowing for a reasonable margin of error if we are to avoid falling off the precipice, as the Canadian fishing industry has done in the Grand Banks. We do not want that to happen here. Although some information clearly requires verification, greater evidence that the experience of fishermen is being heeded would be reassuring.
As has been mentioned in the debate, there have been examples in area VII of fishermen reporting increased abundance of a particular stock long before that increase has been acknowledged by scientists. In area VII, in 1994–95, fisherman reported greatly increased numbers of both anglers and haddock. However, it took scientists two years to recognise that fishermen were right about the increases. A closer working relationship between fishermen and scientists must be encouraged so that some trust and co-operation, rather than confrontation, is achieved.
I urge the Minister to leave this debate and to go to the Council of Ministers with two arguments ringing in his ears. The first is that, although we should agree the introduction of a more precautionary approach in setting future TACs, the new approach should be introduced gradually and in phases, so that the industry will have the


opportunity to plan and to adjust to it. If, like me, the Minister wants the industry to retain respect for the precautionary approach, he will surely appreciate that it is unlikely that that respect will be won if the quota restriction is implemented in a draconian style.
If the Minister can win an agreement stating that introduction of the precautionary approach should be phased in over three years, for example, I would be prepared to offer my support for it. I am sure that the industry's constructive and sensible representatives would do the same.
The second argument is that we have to secure a clearer foundation for future years' indicative quota. The multi-annual quota has already been mentioned in the debate. The quotas issue will have to be readdressed. The Minister will know that scientists' assessment takes account of species' age profile and recruitment into stock. It is surely not beyond the bounds of possibility to provide the industry with a report on the future indicative quota for particular species in a given area.
An earlier resolution of the subsequent year's fishing quota would also be appreciated, so that fishermen plan and invest at least two years ahead—not just two weeks ahead, which is all that they can do at this time of year.
On the future of the common fisheries policy post-2002, the Minister well knows that the Liberal Democrats' clear policy, which was adopted in 1986, is to create a decentralised regional framework for management of EU fisheries. As the arguments in favour of such a framework have been well rehearsed, I shall not make them again today. However, it is worth noting not only that there are encouraging signs that the United Kingdom industry is enthusiastic about a more decentralised approach but that much of the recent debate—including the Minister's comments earlier today—and comments by EU officials seem to endorse the framework's basic message, which we must drive home. It would be helpful if the Minister outlined how he believes the debate will proceed in coming weeks and months.
While the matter is being negotiated, it would be appreciated if some of the detailed keys of relative stability were revisited. One of many classic legacies of the Tories' 1983 negotiations, which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), has been the remarkably poor share allocated to UK vessels in area VII. Cod—which has been mentioned in the debate—is an outstanding case of that, and has probably been one of the biggest sources of complaint among Cornish and south-western fishermen.
Cod are ubiquitous in much of area VII fisheries and—as the fisheries are very mixed—are practically impossible to avoid. Consequently, the discard rate of mature fish is unacceptably high. The UK share of quota for cod in area VIIk is about 8 to 9 per cent., whereas the French have 75 per cent. of the quota. Such anomalies must be revisited and renegotiated.
Part of the problem with fisheries management is that it is based entirely on tight regulation and negative influences, such as restrictions, quotas, restricted landing times and effort control. However, there should now be opportunities for policy makers to employ not only the stick but the carrot. Promotion of sustainable fisheries

by lifting quota restrictions and providing other encouragements would be a good example of that. The Marine Stewardship Council is championing new approaches towards that and the definition of sustainable fishing methods.
One clear candidate—the Minister is well aware of it, as I have raised the matter with him previously—is mackerel handlining. The Cornish mackerel handline fleet can provide a living for 100 men and their families at this time of year. I am grateful to the Minister for helping to extend the quota for 1998; I am also grateful to the staff at MAFF for their help. However, we could do a great deal more.
A Scottish purse seiner can catch the equivalent of the total quota for the Cornish and south-western handliners in one week—about 1,800 tonnes. It means employment for no more than 10 men for a week. The same amount of fish would provide employment for 100 men for more than three months under the handlining method in Cornwall. Handlining is artisanal and has a low impact on stock, so it should be encouraged. The establishment of an EU-wide policy that would take handliners and similar fishing methods out of the quota system would send the right message to the industry. The Minister should be seen to be leading the fight for that in Europe.
On a connected issue, I should be grateful for the Minister's assurance that the mackerel box will be retained. He is aware that it may come under commercial pressure in the near future, and his support would be very much appreciated.
The working time directive—I appreciate that the Minister has said that it is a Department of Trade and Industry matter, but it still affects the fishing fleet—is a classic case of trying to fit a very round peg into a very square hole. Quite frankly, the concept is absurd. Fishermen cannot down tools and go home in the middle of a week-long fishing operation 200 miles off the Cornish coast.
It is not simply an issue about working hours. Even if fishermen opt out—which they would do in my area—they could still lose their share fishermen status with both the Inland Revenue and the Benefits Agency, thus leaving them worse off. The directive is supposed to protect workers, not undermine them, yet that is what it will do if such a crass idea is implemented.
Finally, I want to draw attention to the costs of safety and monitoring. I have already raised with the Minister responsible for shipping a large number of points about safety and I welcome the consultation paper on the subject which was circulated in the summer. I have welcomed the prospect of the increasing use of more sophisticated but potentially more efficient methods of monitoring, such as the gradual introduction of satellite surveillance for larger vessels, to which the Minister referred. However, the proposed improvements fall heavily on the industry.
I urge the Minister to recognise that Government money invested in safety now is money saved in search and rescue and in accident investigation later—quite apart from the immeasurable cost of human lives lost in what is the most hazardous of all industries. Indeed, it has had two of the worst years for accidents and loss of life for a very long time.

Mrs. Joan Humble: Yesterday, I received a Christmas card saying "Christmas Greetings from Fleetwood." Father Christmas visited the Fleetwood fish auction. Those for whom I speak in the fishing industry in Fleetwood would prefer my hon. Friend the Minister to dress up as Santa Claus rather than as Scrooge. I hope that that will be the message from today's debate.
I can tell the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) that, when the Minister visited Fleetwood, he obviously received a warmer welcome from my constituents than he did from the hon. Gentleman's constituents when he visited St. Ives. That is possibly because, when he visited the Fleetwood fish auction at the crack of dawn, he was able to recognise all the different species laid out in front of him and so scored 10 out of 10. I hope that after today's debate he will continue to score 10 out of 10.
Fleetwood has a long tradition as a fishing port. Although 1998 has been a difficult year—largely because of the weather—that is set in the context of a much improved climate of opinion, never mind the weather. There is now an optimism that did not exist two or three years ago. It is vital for my constituents—and, indeed, those in other areas—that the Government get the best deal they can on Thursday. I welcome much that my hon. Friend the Minister said.
I do, however, want to refer to one or two specific issues. Before I deal with quotas, let me say something about the designated landing ports scheme. I am pleased to learn that Fleetwood has been confirmed as a designated port, but there is continued unhappiness about the specified landing times. I hope that the Government will reconsider.
As my hon. Friend the Minister will recall, I raised with him earlier the fact that the scheme, as originally proposed, seemed to apply only to British flagships. I understand, however, that following the October meeting of the Fisheries Council, which he attended, he has persuaded his colleagues that vessels from other European Union countries should also be required to follow the new rules. If that is indeed the case, I applaud his efforts, because the original arrangements have been a cause of concern in Fleetwood.
The introduction of the fixed quota allocations to which my hon. Friend the Minister referred will help Fleetwood and its fish producing organisation, certainly in the long term; but it was disappointing that the reference period for the FQA system could not be extended to reflect a more realistic picture of the fishing effort in Fleetwood. It seems to have coincided with a time when, for a variety of reasons, catches were lower than the typical level. Nevertheless, our fishermen and the industry generally welcome the system, which will lead to more effective quota management.
My hon. Friend the Minister will know of the speculation in the industry that FQAs may lead to individual transferable quotas. Other hon. Members have expressed anxiety about the possibility that large operators will buy up the quota of smaller operators, which is clearly undesirable. Concern has been expressed to me that speculators may buy quota and lease it to the highest bidder. People with no connection with catching fish could, with sufficient funds at their disposal, corner a

proportion of the market and then price quota leases beyond the economic reach of vessel operators in need of the additional quota.
A letter from the Minister appeared in Fishing News on 4 December, a couple of weeks ago. Hon. Members may recall that, during the previous week, a letter had appeared from Mark Hamer, who, representing Fleetwood's fishermen, had expressed concern about remarks that seemed to clarify the financial basis of deals involving purchasing track record and quota units. I was pleased by reassurances given in the last paragraph of my hon. Friend's letter, in which he said—reassuring Mr. Hamer in particular—
although the issue of fisheries licences is a matter for the fisheries departments, it is recognised that the industry has invested heavily in the acquisition of track record. Local initiatives to support the viability of ports within the framework of our quota management arrangements are to be welcomed and I have no plans to disturb these.
That is especially welcome to me, and to Fleetwood.

Mr. Gill: Is the hon. Lady aware that the same Minister has said that he cannot give assurances to anyone who buys quota? Does she share my concern about the fact that that undermines the Minister's assurance—given to the House again this evening—that relative stability will continue?

Mrs. Humble: The letter that I have quoted seeks to clarify that very point. It is especially important in Fleetwood. My local council, Wyre borough council, Associated British Ports, and our local training and enterprise council, Lancashire West TEC, have offered a loan to our fish producers' organisation to help it to acquire more track record or quota units. Obviously, if it wants to proceed along those lines, it will need an assurance from the Government that such action is viable. That is why I referred to the assurances in the Minister's letter.
We need to distinguish between speculation by financial entrepreneurs who may have no links with the fishing industry, and local initiatives in which entire communities work together to support the fishing industry, as happens in Fleetwood. I urge the Minister to safeguard against the former and encourage the latter.
In the context of the Government's intention to negotiate the best possible fishing opportunities for our fleet, I repeat the point that was made about our aging fleet. Of the 24 vessels in the Fleetwood FPO, only one is less than 20 years old. That is another issue that needs to be addressed.
I listened carefully to the Minister's speech, and I welcome the wide variety of grants that the Government have made available for health and safety and developing port facilities. He will recall from his recent visit to Fleetwood that that was a serious concern among local fishermen. They want to modernise their vessels in order to compete with other European countries. We know that the UK is ineligible for EU grants because the previous Government failed to meet the fleet reduction targets under MAGP III—the multi-annual guidance programme. Nevertheless, it is frustrating for our fishing industry.
In his forthcoming meeting with representatives of the fishing industry, therefore, will the Minister look at solutions that are not only imaginative but viable, as we


need to convince fishermen that they can afford to undertake necessary improvements and that the Government will offer whatever support they can?
Given the time, I must rush through my speech. In Fleetwood there are encouraging signs that younger people are returning to the industry. For example, the local college is pursuing a variety of new training courses ranging from the techniques of fish filleting to NVQ level 4 in fishing vessel operation. That is a sign that people have some optimism and hope for the future, and we need to build on that.
Turning to quotas, there clearly needs to be a balance between the preservation of future fish stocks and the current livelihoods of our fishermen. Scientists have painted a bleak picture of existing stock levels—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. John Townend: I have always found the annual debate on fishing and the review of the CFP rather depressing. I cannot remember a year under any Government when a Minister has been able to stand up and say that the CFP is a great success. Indeed, when we consider the criteria on which the CFP should be judged—whether stocks and quotas are increasing; whether conservation is improving; whether the British fishing industry is prosperous and expanding—the answer always seems to be no. Regrettably, this year is no different. Quotas have been cut again.
The North sea is the main area of concern for the Bridlington fishermen whom I represent. The major species fished is cod, so a 6 per cent. cut in the quota will have serious financial implications for the fleet. I suggest that the cut is unnecessary because, about three months ago, it was reported by people who know that the cod stocks have moved in great numbers out of the Barents sea and migrated into the southern North sea and the Grand Banks. Cuts of 23 and 27 per cent. for haddock and whiting show the extent of the failure of the quota system to deliver the goods.
We have heard tonight about the tens of thousands of discards that are put back into the sea. Only idiots could support such a policy, but that is the sort of madness that comes out of Europe month on month. I mentioned that the Norwegians have a fishing policy under which it is illegal to discard. Our Government have taken the madness further by appointing more inspectors to ensure that fish in excess of quota are not brought ashore, but destroyed by being thrown back into the sea. What stupidity, when half the world is starving.
Juveniles are being killed because net sizes are still too small. Rather than make net sizes larger to ensure that more young fish escape, the Government have acquiesced in the harmonisation of net sizes downwards for hake, plaice and megrim. We should note that the harmonisation is to European standards, not to ours.
As a result of industrial fishing, 1 million tonnes of sandeels and pout, which are the basis of the marine food chain, are caught. Despite their promises, the Government have done nothing to stop that wasteful practice—they are all talk, all spin and no do.
I shall not go into the history of quota hopping, except to say that the Government did not take the strong line at Amsterdam that the Conservatives would have taken. This Government are responsible for the level of quota hopping. Quota hoppers now make up 25 per cent. of the tonnage and they take 46 per cent. of the hake quota and 44 per cent. of the plaice quota. All that we got for that was an exchange of letters with Jacques Santer, which are not worth the paper on which they were written. Quota hopping has not delivered any benefit of substance. The Prime Minister is again all talk, all spin and no do.
I shall deal now with the state of the industry. As a result of the activities of the EU and the Labour Government, regulatory costs have soared out of control. The National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations has cited 10 examples of that. I have not time to go through them in detail, but they include costs for satellite monitoring, hygiene inspection costs, tonnage measurement, which can be as much as £2,000 per boat, the western waters reporting, light dues, which are paid by only the British and the Greeks, the general marine distress signal system, EU health and safety directives, the increased fish vessel survey fees—a rate of £70 an hour is excessive—the under-12 m safety code, and the working time directive. When the dust settles, the Government will be held responsible for imposing the working time directive on the fishing industry; by accepting the social chapter, they enabled Europe to impose it on us.
As has been said, the average age of the fleet is more than 25 years. That has implications both for safety and for the industry's prosperity. We have heard that the industry has not been eligible for European grants. The previous Government bear some responsibility for that, but so too do this Government. We also heard today how low the industry is in the list of the Government's priorities. They are not prepared to pay taxpayers' money on building grants or to have a scrap-and-build policy. It is funny that, when the chairman of BMW wants £100 million, taxpayers' money can be found for him. Fishing is a low priority.
The industry's aging fleet has to compete with modern EU fleets that are partly paid for by EU funds and our taxpayers. As in so many cases involving Europe, our people are not on a level playing field. The industry has been reduced in size by quota hopping. It is slowly being squeezed by the EU, so that, by 2002, there will be no British industry, only a European industry that is run from Brussels. The CFP is not about sensible fish management: it is about European integration. We will have European fish, European waters and a European industry.
Is there a solution? I believe that there is, but that it has to be radical. I suggest that we look at the industries in Norway and in Iceland. I was delighted by the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), which was the first positive speech we have heard from a Tory fishing spokesman—perhaps we shall now get a decent Tory policy.
We must go back to square one. We should follow the policy of Save Britain's Fish and leave the CFP, which decimates the food source, legalises the catching and marketing of fish that have not reached breeding size, and leads to thousands of tonnes of prime fish being thrown back into the sea.
We should return the competence of fishing to the House of Commons and reclaim British control of our territorial waters—200 miles or the median line, whichever is the smaller. That would enable us to manage stocks. We could stop driving British fishermen from our waters and perhaps have the most successful fishing industry in the world.
Hon. Members should not forget that Britain is an island, surrounded by what could be some of the most fertile fishing grounds in the world. We cannot be at the heart of Europe and have a prosperous British fishing industry. The Prime Minister said that I and some of my colleagues were headbangers. I suggest that, if he thinks that Europe will allow us to have a prosperous fishing industry or a bigger share of the fish from our own waters, he is the biggest headbanger of all.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: People outside know that it is Christmas because they are beginning to buy turkeys. Members of Parliament who represent fishing ports know it because we are having our annual ritual of empowering a Minister before he goes to negotiate in Brussels. It is a pity that so little time has been left by the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), who got off his chest his suppressed feelings of 18 years. In saying the things that he was unable to say during that period, he has filled the time available to other hon. Members. I shall be brief, and I shall make about five basic points.
There is no point in looking at individual quotas, because the Minister has gone over them with the fishing organisations this afternoon. However, I hope that the Minister will try to avoid the wild fluctuations in quotas that have occurred from time to time. Just because the year class for cod in 1997 is down is no reason for the lurching drop of 23 per cent. in cod in the Irish sea and 22 per cent. in area VII. The industry needs stability, and those lurches must be cut out. If the Minister is to make the licence a negotiable instrument with a financial basis, it must guarantee some kind of quota, and some stability in that quota. I hope that he will try to moderate those fluctuations.
The precautionary approach is, in principle, a good idea. It is a good idea to create a buffer zone between the biological limit and the total allowable catch. I am in favour of that, as is the industry. However, bringing it in suddenly, without notice and on a substantial basis—we are looking at a buffer zone of 20 per cent.—is an unreasonable and unfair imposition on the industry. I hope that I am right in saying that the Commission has moderated the proposal, and I hope that the Minister will try to moderate it further. It is right in principle, but not tout d'un coup.
Our aging fleet worries me. The marine accidents investigation branch's report in 1997 showed that 31 vessels were lost, 23 of which were more than 25 years old and three of which were more than 30 years old. There is a safety hazard—it is not only a competitive problem. France and Spain, in particular, have been able to modernise their fleets with European grants that have not been available to our industry. Consequently, we have an aging fleet, and there is more of a risk to our fishermen. We are less competitive and more risky as a fleet.
It is important to draw down European money, if it is available. I understand that funding is not available because we have not achieved our MAGP III targets.

However, surely we can meet the intermediate targets with effort control, and therefore funds could be available on a sectoral basis. I know that we will have to pay more as a national contribution because of the Fontainebleau agreement, and I know that the Treasury will oppose that. However, it is unacceptable to object to the proposal when safety is at stake and the lives of fishermen are at risk. The fleet needs modernising, and something must be done. It is no good just trotting out the Treasury arguments.
Is European funding available? If it is, we can apply our argument to the Treasury to get some recognition of the need to modernise and to keep the British fleet as up to date as we can. Thanks to the delay in decommissioning by the previous Government, we have a real problem with our aging fleet.
With the industry in its present state, it is wrong to impose extra charges in the way envisaged. Extra charges are coming from all directions—no one is supervising the process, or protecting the interests of the industry in the way that I hope the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will. Charges are coming from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and from the Department of Trade and Industry. Compliance costs are increasing, and those costs are not being imposed on our competitors in the same way. Light dues were introduced by the previous Government, and are not paid by anyone else. In addition, the cost of satellite monitoring is paid for out of European funding for other nations. There are also hygiene inspection costs; tonnage measurements, which will cost up to £2,000 a vessel; increased survey fees; and, hanging over it all, the threat of the working time directive, which will impose massive costs. I do not think that it will even be possible to enforce it in the industry, but it will be a huge burden.
The industry cannot afford all those charges, and needs to be protected. Charges should certainly be no higher than those imposed on our European competitors. There is a problem with charges on the processing sector. In Grimsby, we are about to lose 500 fish processing jobs. The Minister is well aware of the situation. There has been such an escalation in the price of fish in world markets—everyone is competing to get fish—that the charge to the consumer has had to be increased, so the consumer bought 9 per cent. less fish in the most recent quarter.
The industry is in real difficulties, and it is wrong to impose so many charges. The waste water charge will be crippling for merchants, and the sanitary inspection charges, at each stage of processing, will be a real burden for the processing sector. There is too much bureaucratic inertia in the system.
With the industry and the processing side facing such problems, it is unfair, unreasonable and wrong to impose such charges. Having said that, I express my confidence in the Minister, who has worked hard to understand the industry. He has listened to it and consulted it far more effectively than any other Minister. I am confident that he will fight for what is right for the industry. I wish him more power to his elbow.

Mr. Steen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My constituency has the largest beam trawler fleet in Britain and the largest crabbing fleet. My constituents will not understand why, for the second year running, I have been unable to attract the attention of the Chair. I


understand that, on this occasion, it is because Front Benchers took longer than expected. I wonder whether, when Back Benchers are allowed only 10 minutes to speak, Front Benchers could also be confined to perhaps 15 or 20 minutes.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I have a great deal of sympathy for him. I have made it known to both the Minister and the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) that the Chair would expect Back Benchers to be given due consideration in future in a debate such as this. It is unfair for Back Benchers to come in with their cases prepared on behalf of their constituents and be so disappointed. I am glad to be able to put that matter on the record.

Mr. Alex Salmond: I applaud your remarks, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I have great sympathy for the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) and other hon. Members who will be unable to speak. I have attended this debate for the past 12 years, and I have seen this situation occurring many times. I was rather hoping that the new Fisheries Minister, as he complained about the matter so many times in opposition, would ensure, with his colleagues, that we had adequate time for fishing interests to be represented. Not one Northern Ireland Member has had the chance to put his case, and I am the first Scottish Member to do so.
This is a valedictory performance for Scottish Members, as we are about to move to the Scottish Parliament, and I am certain that, whatever else it does, that Parliament will allow us more time than the House has done to debate the huge and major industry of fishing.
In January 1997, the Foreign Secretary promised at the Scottish Grand Committee in Edinburgh that a Scottish Minister could lead the delegation in the European negotiations. Given the preponderance of the Scottish fleet in value and landings and its majority in tonnage, I should have thought that fisheries were a highly appropriate matter on which to live up to that promise. I hope that the Minister will answer that point.
I was struck, when listening to the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), by the memory of that great story about Harold Wilson in Devonport. He asked, "Why do I say that the Royal Navy is the premier service?", and a heckler shouted, "Because you are in Devonport." Why does the Conservative party call for the national repatriation of fisheries? Because they are in opposition. I have attended these debates for the past 12 years and many other hon. Members have done so for even longer, but that departure from what the Conservative party said in government almost beggars belief.
It is true that, within the framework of the European Union, a determined country with a closely defined set of objectives can achieve great things for a particular subject matter, and that is what Spain has done with fisheries and with regional policy. However, the evidence of the Conservative party's 18 years in government was that, far from being the prime objective of European policy, fishing was one of the bargaining counters that was traded away to achieve other objectives. Spain achieved early

access to western waters because that was negotiated away by the Conservative Government as part of their overall approach to European policy. The Conservative party must hope that fishermen have short memories, but I suspect that they will not be short enough for the political purposes of Conservative Front Benchers.
I wish to address two serious points to the Fisheries Minister. In opposition, he said that the hallmarks of his approach to fisheries policy would be consultation with the industry and parity with other fishing fleets in Europe. He said that he would not tolerate a situation in which the fishing fleet of this country was placed at a competitive disadvantage to other European fleets. We have had fly-by-night Fisheries Ministers in the past, and the Minister is certainly not one of those, because he has been involved in the issue, in opposition and in government, for most of the 12 years that I have participated in fisheries debates. Even though we had fly-by-night Tory Ministers, they still managed to outstay their welcomes.
I wish to press the Minister gently on those areas in which he has departed from the admirable objectives that he put forward in opposition. We had an historic event in fisheries policy earlier this year when the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and the National Federation of Fishing Organisations, the two major bodies representing the industry, met and put together a document—which hugely impressed many hon. Members who represent fishing interests—on the zonal management approach to the new fisheries policy emerging in Europe.
Therefore, I was disappointed that the fishing representatives described the Government's approach to that document as "somewhat non-committal". The Minister lost the opportunity presented by that fine document and the six months of the United Kingdom presidency of the European Union. I notice that the list of achievements did not get to the heart of the key areas of fisheries policy. When the Under-Secretary winds up, I hope that he will commit the Government to many of the excellent principles of the zonal management approach.
The Minister briefly alluded to the licence working group. My understanding is that three decisions on licences have been made almost without reference to the licence working group and, in one case, in direct opposition to its declaration of fisheries interests. I refer to the allocation of freezer trawlers to licences based on white fish licences. That was fiercely opposed by the licence working group, but went ahead by ministerial edict.
Given that the freezer trawlers south of the border are all flagships, someone in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food must carry a torch for them. Otherwise, it is inexplicable that the licence working group should be consulted by the Minister, yet he makes decisions that are not favoured by the industry. I gently suggest to the Minister that the commitments that he made to a consultative approach have not always been fulfilled, and that civil servants seem to make decisions without always referring them to the Minister.
I associate myself with the remarks made about parity by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). The Minister must make the connection between the aging nature of the fleet and incidents at sea. The safety record has deteriorated. There are many reasons why fishing boats are lost, and we cannot necessarily put our finger on one particular cause. However, it follows that an aging


fleet will be more dangerous, and the Minister must make that connection. His remarks about the loss of men from Iona and elsewhere are much appreciated by the industry, but there is an inherent connection between the age and structure of a fleet and the safety record of the industry. It was as a result of parity questions that European fleets received investment over the past 10 years—a point to which the Minister must address himself if he is to live up to the claims he made when he was in opposition.
Let me offer one more example where parity does not exist. The boats of our pelagic fleet operate in Atlantic waters on restrictive licences. They need a licence for each species, but other pelagic boats do not face that problem. When he was in opposition, the Minister said that he would make sure that our fishermen did not operate at a disadvantage to other fleets. If he is to live up to those words, he must examine areas such as that.

Mr. Morley: indicated assent.

Mr. Salmond: I am glad to see the Minister nod his assent to that point.
In the interests of brevity, I shall make four quick references to points that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland might mention in his summing up. There is a serious danger that the decline in the quota for North sea haddock will re-ignite the problem that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) rightly said had been almost eradicated—discards and the black fish. If we press too hard on North sea haddock, particularly on the precautionary principle, there is a danger of the re-emergence of that problem, which we have worked hard to eliminate. Can the Minister tell us whether he will invoke the Hague preference to its full extent so that we can at least get some compensation in relation to the North sea haddock allocation?
Secondly, the Minister may wish to enlarge on points made about the working time directive. The Parliamentary Secretary spoke reassuringly on those points earlier.
Thirdly, the pelagic fleet has commissioned an excellent report by the Marine Resources Assessment Group, which I read today. Will both Ministers read the report carefully as it makes some excellent points about capacity in the pelagic industry? It is worth careful study.
Finally, I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, Central about the damage that water charges could do to the economically fragile processing industry.
I have been as brief as possible under the circumstances, but let me close with one last remark. I look forward to having adequate parliamentary time for debates on fishing policy and the fishing industry in the Scottish Parliament, and I hope that we can pursue those discussions through direct access to the leadership of the fisheries delegation on the Council of Ministers. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will refer to that point in his closing remarks.

Dr. Liam Fox: I hope that both Ministers will note the number of hon. Members who have been unable to speak, and that we shall be allowed a longer time for a future debate.
We must ask why we have the annual debate on total allowable catches. There are two reasons. First, we require conservation of a vital national resource. Secondly, we

require an economically viable fishing industry. Several questions must therefore be asked annually: how do we achieve those two objectives; what are the current problems of the common fisheries policy; what improvements are necessary, and how can they be made; what is the least we will accept; and what can we do if we cannot achieve that minimum?
Conservation is the first point to consider. The Parliamentary Secretary was quite right to say that conservation is dependent on scientific advice. He said that the precautionary approach was hard to fault in principle, and we agree with that. There are costs, however. That approach may mean that more fish are dumped at sea, and it may be anti-conservationist, as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) said. Under current policy, the dumping of prime fish continues apace, which is killing fish unnecessarily and polluting the sea bed. Worse still, further reductions in the already proposed minimum landing sizes—to below the size at which fish can breed—must have a dramatic effect on conservation. The policy is failing in one of its main aims.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Townend) raised industrial fishing, an issue that I am sure many other hon. Members would have brought up had they been able to speak. The latest TAC of 1 million tonnes for sandeels and pout gives only 5 per cent. to the United Kingdom, but it is the base of the marine food chain. Can the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland tell us how how that will be controlled, as it is vital to conservation?
Many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), mentioned the aging fleet. We heard that money needed to be made available to help. The Government's defence is that other EU countries get access to money because they have met their multi-annual guidance programme requirements, but the Government know that they question the Commission's reliability on estimates of compliance as much as we did. Do they intend repeatedly to challenge the Commission's estimates and what is to be done about them?
In agriculture, we have seen the Government's unwillingness to claim agrimonetary compensation, yet the United Kingdom is substantially behind France, Spain, Italy and Portugal as a recipient of the financial instrument of fisheries grant—FIFG. It is a question of priorities. The Treasury line is that 71p out of every pound has to come from the Treasury, which I have always thought of as a bizarre way of saying that one gets 30 per cent. back for everything that one spends on a particular programme. It depends whether one is the Treasury, trying to withhold the money, or the Departments, which want it. The Minister said that the money available would not be best used to modernise the fishing fleet, yet our European partners, who get that money, are also our competitors. We must bear that in mind if our fishing industry is to remain viable.
I hope that the Minister will take up the safety argument in his response, and deal with the modernisation of an aging fleet. The National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations has said:
Regrettably, the Government's approach to the issue so far has combined a sanctimonious high moral tone with a failure to focus on the age of the fleet as a central factor in the high casualty rate.


I hope that the Government will tackle that.
On quota hoppers, my hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire made some powerful points. They make up only 2 per cent. of the fleet but, because the boats are typically more powerful and larger, they account for perhaps one quarter of the total national tonnage.
After the ridiculous throwing out of the Merchant Shipping Act 1998, which was overturned by the European Court of Justice, we were left with the Government's agreement with Jacques Santer, which is utterly meaningless in effect because quota hoppers need meet only one of the following criteria. At least 50 per cent. of the quota, by weight, must be landed in the UK, but that allows for fish to be landed and immediately placed on refrigerated lorries for transport abroad. Normally, 50 per cent. of the crew would be resident in a UK coastal area, but the definition could be said to omit klondikers from associated vessels—I look forward to hearing the Minister's views on that—while residency itself remains unsatisfactorily defined. Therefore, many fishermen could still effectively be resident abroad.
Another criterion is that the owner would incur
a given level of operating expenditure
in UK coastal areas for goods and services, but that ignores the reality, which is that some quota hoppers also own, or are associated with, food processing companies. Those are the real impacts of what was agreed. The policy has not created jobs or solved the problem.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) could not speak in the debate, as he would have loved to say a few things about compliance costs, which are ever growing. The NFFO has said:
the ever growing battery of regulations to which the fishing industry is subject, are now spiralling out of control, posing a threat to vessels whose viability is marginal and imposing a massive burden on the industry as a whole. There appears to be no sensitivity within Government to this or even any attempt at an overview of the costs imposed by different departments.
The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) said how much he appreciated satellite monitoring, but the UK declines to part-fund it for all vessels over 24 m in length, thereby blocking the EU side of the grant. Our industry is being put at a disadvantage to its competitors.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire mentioned tonnage measurements. There again, extra costs are being imposed on the industry, and for what? Perhaps worst of all is the working time directive. Including the industry in it would ignore the factors that are specific to fishing. It is seasonal and entirely dependent on the weather. Furthermore, share fishing, resulting in what one might call co-operative earnings, makes up a considerable part of the industry. That is better classed as self-employment—if there is no cash, there is no pay.
The Government have opened the floodgates to all those rules by agreeing to the social chapter, and it is simply not good enough for them to attempt to wash their hands of the damage that will ultimately be done to fishing and other industries.
I want to give the Minister reasonable time to reply to the many points raised in the debate, but when the Parliamentary Secretary opened the debate, he painted an optimistic longer-term picture for the industry. What will happen in 2002? The derogation may be renewed, but at what cost? If it has to be done by unanimity, what legal challenges may lie ahead?
We need a firm bottom line for what is too high a price for the British fishing industry to pay within the common fisheries policy, and we need to keep all our options open. It is surely not our position that the maintenance of the architecture of the common fisheries policy is worth paying any price for. If it is, we have abdicated our responsibility and betrayed our fishermen. If it is not, then the job of this House is to put the British interest first. I caution the Minister against using the line that Europe is coming our way—boy, do we know that line.
We must hope that negotiation is successful, but we must be aware of the consequences of failure for the industry. Failure is not an acceptable outcome and we must ensure that, faced with that, we would rule out nothing at all in our response as a British Parliament.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Calum Macdonald): I am very pleased to wind up the debate this evening. It has ranged widely, and for the most part constructively, across many aspects of fisheries policy. I shall respond to the specific issues raised by hon. Members, but first, I should like to refer to an important point that was made by several hon. Members. Like them, I acknowledge the special nature of the fishing industry which I know well from my constituency. Fishing is a dangerous occupation, and fishermen have often paid a heavy price for reaping the harvest of the sea. We should never lose sight of that.
Indeed, in my constituency during the past weekend, a 28-year-old fishermen, Donald Morrison, was lost in a tragic accident while fishing. I am sure that the whole House will join me in extending sympathy to his family and to the families of others who have lost their lives during the past year.
I shall now turn to some of the points made in the debate. I know that many fishermen believe that they have much to contribute to the management of the stocks, and even to the scientific assessment of the stocks. I know, too, that they are frustrated by the variations in the total allowable catches and quotas. They find it difficult to cope with such variations which disrupt their markets. Undoubtedly, they would like greater stability in the total allowable catches. Many hon. Members made that point, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran).
In managing the stocks, we need to take full account of those very justifiable concerns. However, at the same time, we need to take account of the scientific evidence about fish stocks and their future viability. We cannot just ignore that evidence, no matter how disappointing it might be for a particular stock in a particular year.
I can assure the House that the Government will do all we can in the negotiations ahead to get the best possible deal for British fishermen consistent with long-term sustainability of fishing stocks. We shall not hesitate to invoke the Hague preference, when that would be in the interests of the industry. However, we must also ensure


that, once the Fisheries Council has decided the TACs and the quotas—which it will do with regard both to the scientific advice, which is important, and to the wider economic implications—they are respected in practice by all fishermen.
It would be appropriate to say something about devolution, given the significance of the debate as we are about to enter a new era for fisheries management within the United Kingdom. In previous debates, some hon. Members expressed the view that devolution will mean that Scotland will lose its voice in fisheries management, especially at the European level. Others fear that the Scottish Parliament will fail to respect UK obligations or, in pursuing the interests of Scottish fishermen, will discriminate against fishermen from other parts of the UK. I am sure that both those anxieties will prove to be unfounded. Devolution will help us to deliver local solutions to local problems across the United Kingdom.

Mr. Salmond: Will a Scottish Fisheries Minister in the Scottish Parliament be able to lead a United Kingdom delegation to the Fisheries Council, as the Foreign Secretary suggested when he was in Edinburgh last January?

Mr. Macdonald: I assure hon. Members that Scottish Ministers will continue to be able to attend Fisheries Council meetings as part of the United Kingdom team. There is no reason why they cannot lead delegations, as appropriate. They can do that now, and the position remains unchanged.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Macdonald: I had better not, as I have further points to make.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central referred to important matters that affect the wider industry, particularly the processing sector. The industry has expressed concern about increased water charges in my hon. Friend's constituency and elsewhere in the area. It is important to note that other parts of the United Kingdom have faced similar increases. The North of Scotland water authority is in discussions with industry representatives, and I hope that it will be able to clarify the options for the industry. I understand also that the Sea Fish Industry Authority is consulting the industry about practical ideas for reducing the volume of waste, which is the best way of tackling that problem in the long term.
Several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), referred to the safety of old boats and the need for investment in new boats. The industry is concerned about the safety of older fishing boats, and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary addressed that issue squarely in his speech. He made it clear that he and the Scottish Fisheries Minister are prepared to meet industry representatives to discuss practical ways of addressing the issue.
Hon. Members also referred to the provisions of the working time directive and how they apply to fishermen. I stress that the Government are committed to the principles of the directive on health and safety grounds. We believe that they are important. However, the Government have made it clear that any proposals to extend them to sea fishing must take account of the practical and commercial realities of the industry, including the share fishermen system. The Commission's latest proposals show that it is taking those factors into account. Officials from the various Departments concerned will continue to keep in close touch with the industry regarding the proposals.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) called for better enforcement across Europe. She is correct to say that the Government looked for and welcome the improved control measures proposed for adoption later this week at the Fisheries Council meeting in Brussels. Proposed amendments in the regulations provide for, among other things, a number of improvements in control at the point of landing and in relation to the sale and transport of fish. We welcome the European Commission's efforts to encourage co-operation and consistency of enforcement across the Union.
Several hon. Members referred to the precautionary approach. That is a sensible principle. It is the first year in which it has been advanced, and we recognise that more work must be done before we can rely solidly on that new approach.
Perhaps the most striking contribution to tonight's debate was the speech by the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), who opened for the Opposition. He launched a fierce and relentless attack on the past policies of his party in government but, unfortunately, offered no credible alternative to quota management. The problem is not the CFP, but the need to manage limited and finite stocks. We must face that reality, and we shall approach the forthcoming negotiations on that basis.

Mr. Andrew George: I beg to move—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not necessary for the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) to put the Question, as the House has agreed that the vote will be taken at 10 o'clock.

Mr. Macdonald: I have reached the end of my remarks. I commend the motion to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 50, Noes 340.

Division No. 24]
[10 pm


AYES


Allan, Richard
Cotter, Brian


Beggs,Roy
Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Fearn, Ronnie


Brake, Tom
Foster, Don (Bath)


Brand, Dr Peter
George, Andrew (St Ives)



Gorrie, Donald


Breed, Colin
Hancock, Mike


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Harris, Dr Evan



Harvey, Nick


Burnett, John
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Chidgey, David
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)






Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Kirkwood, Archy
Stunell, Andrew


Livsey, Richard
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Thompson, William


Moore, Michael
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Tyler, Paul


Oaten, Mark
Wallace, James


Öpik, Lembit
Webb, Steve


Rendel, David
Welsh, Andrew


Ross, William (E Lond'y)



Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Salmond, Alex
Mr. Edward Davey and


Sanders, Adrian
Mr. Phil Willis.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Ainger, Nick
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Alexander, Douglas
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Clelland, David


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Clwyd, Ann


Ashton, Joe
Coaker, Vernon


Atherton, Ms Candy
Cohen, Harry


Atkins, Charlotte
Coleman, Iain


Austin, John
Colman, Tony


Barnes, Harry
Connarty, Michael


Barron, Kevin
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Battle, John
Cooper, Yvette


Bayley, Hugh
Corbett, Robin


Beard, Nigel
Corbyn, Jeremy


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Corston, Ms Jean


Begg, Miss Anne
Cousins, Jim


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Cox, Tom


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cranston, Ross


Bennett, Andrew F
Crausby, David


Benton, Joe
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Bermingham, Gerald
Cummings, John


Berry, Roger
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Best, Harold
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Betts, Clive
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Blackman, Liz
Darvill, Keith


Blears, Ms Hazel
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Blizzard, Bob
Davidson, Ian


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Boateng, Paul
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Borrow, David
Dawson, Hilton


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Dean, Mrs Janet


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Denham, John


Bradshaw, Ben
Dewar, Rt Hon Donald


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Dismore, Andrew


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Dobbin, Jim


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Browne, Desmond
Donohoe, Brian H


Buck, Ms Karen
Doran, Frank


Burden, Richard
Drew, David


Burgon, Colin
Drown, Ms Julia


Butler, Mrs Christine
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Caborn, Richard
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Edwards, Huw


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Ennis, Jeff


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Etherington, Bill


Cann, Jamie
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Caplin, Ivor
Fisher, Mark


Casale, Roger
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Caton, Martin
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Cawsey, Ian
Flint, Caroline


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Flynn, Paul


Chisholm, Malcolm
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Clapham, Michael
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Foulkes, George



Fyfe, Maria





Galloway, George
Love, Andrew


Gapes, Mike
McAllion, John


Gerrard, Neil
McAvoy, Thomas


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McCabe, Steve


Godman, Dr Norman A
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Godsiff, Roger
McDonagh, Siobhain


Goggins, Paul
Macdonald, Calum


Golding, Mrs Llin
McDonnell, John


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McIsaac, Shona


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Grocott, Bruce
McNamara, Kevin


Grogan, John
McNulty, Tony


Gunnell, John
MacShane, Denis


Hain, Peter
Mactaggart, Fiona


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
McWalter, Tony


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
McWilliam, John


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Mallaber, Judy


Healey, John
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Marek, Dr John


Hepburn, Stephen
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Heppell, John
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hesford, Stephen
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hill, Keith
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hinchliffe, David
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Home Robertson, John
Martlew, Eric


Hood, Jimmy
Maxton, John


Hope, Phil
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hopkins, Kelvin
Meale, Alan


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Merron, Gillian


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Michael, Alun


Howells, Dr Kim
Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)


Hoyle, Lindsay
Milburn, Alan


Humble, Mrs Joan
Miller, Andrew


Hurst, Alan
Mitchell, Austin


Hutton, John
Moffatt, Laura


Iddon, Dr Brian
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Illsley, Eric
Moran, Ms Margaret


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Jamieson, David
Morley, Elliot


Jenkins, Brian
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Mudie, George


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Mullin, Chris



Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Norris, Dan


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jowell, Ms Tessa
O'Hara, Eddie


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Olner, Bill


Keeble, Ms Sally
O'Neill, Martin


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Kemp, Fraser
Pearson, Ian


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Pendry, Tom


Khabra, Piara S
Perham, Ms Linda


Kidney, David
Pickthall, Colin


Kilfoyle, Peter
Pike, Peter L


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Plaskitt, James


Kingham, Ms Tess
Pond, Chris


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Pope, Greg


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Pound, Stephen


Laxton, Bob
Powell, Sir Raymond


Lepper, David
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Leslie, Christopher
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Levitt, Tom
Primarolo, Dawn


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Prosser, Gwyn


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Linton, Martin
Quinn, Lawrie


Livingstone, Ken
Radice, Giles


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Rammell, Bill


Lock, David
Rapson, Syd






Raynsford, Nick
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Stringer, Graham


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Rooker, Jeff



Rooney, Terry
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Rowlands, Ted
Temple-Morris, Peter


Ruane, Chris
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Ryan, Ms Joan
Timms, Stephen


Salter, Martin
Tipping, Paddy


Savidge, Malcolm
Todd, Mark


Sawford, Phil
Touhig, Don


Sedgemore, Brian
Trickett, Jon


Shaw, Jonathan
Truswell, Paul


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Singh, Marsha
Ward, Ms Claire


Skinner, Dennis
Wareing, Robert N


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Watts, David



White, Brian


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Winnick, David


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Wise, Audrey


Snape, Peter
Wood, Mike


Soley, Clive
Woolas, phil


Spellar, John
Worthington, Tony


Squire, Ms Rachel
Wray, James


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Steinberg, Gerry
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Stevenson, George
Wyatt, Derek


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)



Stinchcombe, Paul
Tellers for the Noes:


Stoate, Dr Howard
Mr. Jim Dowd and


Stott, Roger
Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 377, Noes 129.

Division No. 25]
[10.13 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Blackman, Liz


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Blears, Ms Hazel


Ainger, Nick
Blizzard, Bob


Alexander, Douglas
Blunkett, Rt Hon David


Allan, Richard
Boateng, Paul


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Borrow, David


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Atkins, Charlotte
Bradshaw, Ben


Austin, John
Brand, Dr Peter


Barnes, Harry
Breed, Colin


Barron, Kevin
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Battle, John
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Bayley, Hugh
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Beard, Nigel
Browne, Desmond


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Begg, Miss Anne
Buck, Ms Karen


Beggs, Roy
Burden, Richard


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Burgon, Colin


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Burnett, John


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Butler, Mrs Christine


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen


Benton, Joe
Caborn, Richard


Bermingham, Gerald
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Berry, Roger
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Best, Harold
Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)


Betts, Clive
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)





Campbell-Savours, Dale
Gapes, Mike


Cann, Jamie
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Caplin, Ivor
Gerrard, Neil


Casale, Roger
Gibson, Dr Ian


Caton, Martin
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Cawsey, Ian
Godman, Dr Norman A


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Godsiff, Roger


Chidgey, David
Goggins, Paul


Chisholm, Malcolm
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clapham, Michael
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Gorrie, Donald


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)



Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Grocott, Bruce


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Grogan, John


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Gunnell, John


Clelland, David
Hain, Peter


Clwyd, Ann
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Coaker, Vernon
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Cohen, Harry
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Coleman, Iain
Hancock, Mike


Colman, Tony
Harris, Dr Evan


Connarty, Michael
Harvey, Nick


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Cooper, Yvette
Healey, John


Corbett, Robin
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Corston, Ms Jean
Hepburn, Stephen


Cotter, Brian
Heppell, John


Cousins, Jim
Hesford, Stephen


Cox, Tom
Hill, Keith


Cranston, Ross
Hinchliffe, David


Crausby, David
Home Robertson, John


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hope, Phil


Cummings, John
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Howells, Dr Kim


Darvill, Keith
Hoyle, Lindsay


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Humble, Mrs Joan


Davidson, Ian
Hurst, Alan


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Hutton, John


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Dawson, Hilton
Illsley, Eric


Dean, Mrs Janet
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Denham, John
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Dewar, Rt Hon Donald
Jamieson, David


Dismore, Andrew
Jenkins, Brian


Dobbin, Jim
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Donohoe, Brian H



Doran, Frank
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Drew, David
Jones, Helen (Wanington N)


Drown, Ms Julia
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Edwards, Huw
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Jowell, Ms Tessa


Ennis, Jeff
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Etherington, Bill
Keeble, Ms Sally


Fearn, Ronnie
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Fisher, Mark
Kemp, Fraser


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Flint, Caroline
Khabra, Piara S


Flynn, Paul
Kidney, David


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Kilfoyle, Peter


Foster, Don (Bath)
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Kingham, Ms Tess


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Kirkwood, Archy


Foulkes, George
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Fyfe, Maria
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Galloway, George
Laxton, Bob






Lepper, David
Plaskitt, James


Leslie, Christopher
Pond, Chris


Levitt, Tom
Pope, Greg


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Pound Stephen


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Powell, Sir Raymond


Linton, Martin
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Livingstone, Ken
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Livsey, Richard



Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Lock, David
Primarolo, Dawn


Love, Andrew
Prosser, Gwyn


McAllion, John
Quin, Ms Joyce


McAvoy, Thomas
Quinn, Lawrie


McCabe, Steve
Radice, Giles


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Rammell, Bill


McDonagh, Siobhain
Rapson, Syd


Macdonald, Calum
Raynsford, Nick


McDonnell, John
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


McGuire, Mrs Anne



McIsaac, Shona
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Rendel, David


Mackinlay, Andrew
Roche, Mrs Barbara


McNamara, Kevin
Rooney, Terry


McNulty, Tony
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


MacShane, Denis
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Mactaggart, Fiona
Rowlands, Ted


McWalter, Tony
Ruane, Chris


McWilliam, John
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Mallaber, Judy
Ryan, Ms Joan


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter



Marek, Dr John
Salter, Martin


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Sanders, Adrian


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Savidge, Malcolm


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Sawford, Phil


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Sedgemore, Brian


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Martlew, Eric
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Maxton, John
Singh, Marsha


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Skinner, Dennis


Meale, Alan
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Merron, Gillian
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Michael, Alun



Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)



Milburn, Alan
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Miller, Andrew
Smith, Jonn (Glamorgan)


Mitchell, Austin
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Moffatt, Laura
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Moore, Michael
Snape, Peter


Moran, Ms Margaret
Soley, Clive


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Spellar, John


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Squire, Ms Rachel


Morley, Elliot



Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Mudie, George
Steinberg, Gerry


Mullin, Chris
Stevenson, George


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)
Stinchcombe, Paul


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Stoate, Dr Howard


Norris, Dan
Stott, Roger


Oaten, Mark
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Stringer, Graham


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


O'Hara, Eddie
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Olner, Bill



O'Neill, Martin
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Öpik, Lembit



Organ, Mrs Diana
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Pearson Ian
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)


Pendry, Tom
Temple-Morris, Peter


Perham, Ms Linda
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Pickthall, Colin
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Pike, Peter L
Thompson, William





Timms, Stephen
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Tipping, Paddy



Todd, Mark
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Tonge, Dr Jenny
Willis, Phil


Touhig, Don
Winnick, David


Trickett, Jon
Wise, Audrey


Truswell, Paul
Wood, Mike


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Woolas, Phil


Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Worthington, Tony


Wallace, James
Wray, James


Ward, Ms Claire
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Wareing, Robert N
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Watts, David
Wyatt, Derek


Webb, Steve



White, Brian
Tellers for the Ayes:


Whitehead, Dr Alan
Mr. Robert Ainsworth and


Wicks, Malcolm
Mr. Jim Dowd.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Horam, John


Amess, David
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Hunter, Andrew


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Bercow, John
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Jenkin, Bernard


Blunt, Crispin
Key, Robert


Body, Sir Richard
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Boswell, Tim
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Brady, Graham
Laing. Mrs Eleanor


Brazier, Julian
Lansley, Andrew


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Leigh, Edward


Browning, Mrs Angela
Letwin, Oliver


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Burns, Simon
Lidington, David


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter



Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Chope, Christopher
Loughton, Tim


Clappison, James
Luff, peter


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John



MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew



MaLoughlin, Patrick


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Malins, Humfrey


Collins, Tim
Maples, John


Colvin, Michael
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Cormack, Sir Patrick
May, Mrs Theresa


Cran, James
Moss, Malcolm


Curry, Rt Hon David
Nicholls, Patrick


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Norman, Archie


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Ottaway, Richard


Day, Stephen
Page, Richard


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Paice, James


Duncan Smith, Iain
Paterson, Owen


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Pickles, Eric


Evans, Nigel
Prior, David


Faber, David
Randall, John


Fallon, Michael
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Robathan, Andrew


Fox, Dr Liam
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Fraser, Christopher
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Garnier, Edward
Ruffley, David


Gibb, Nick
St Aubyn, Nick


Gill, Christopher
Sayeed, Jonathan


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Shepherd, Richard


Gray, James
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Green, Damian
Spring, Richard


Greenway, John
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Grieve, Dominic
Steen, Anthony


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Streeter, Gary


Hammond, Philip
Swayne, Desmond


Hawkins, Nick
Syms, Robert


Hayes, John
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Heald, Oliver
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Taylor, John M (Solihull)






Taylor, Sir Teddy
Wilkinson, John


Townend, John
Willetts, David


Trend, Michael
Wilshire, David


Tyrie, Andrew
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Viggers, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Wardle, Charles
Yeo, Tim


Waterson, Nigel
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Wells, Bowen



Whitney, Sir Raymond
Tellers for the Noes:


Whittingdale, John
Mrs. Caroline Spelman and


Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Sir David Madel.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Union Document No. COM(98)680, relating to the fixing of total allowable catches for 1999 and certain conditions under which they may be fished; and supports the Government's intentions to negotiate the best possible fishing opportunities for British fishermen based on sustainable fisheries management, effective enforcement and the need to ensure that regional differences of fisheries are fully recognised.

Sir George Young: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Government have been defeated yet again in the other place on the principle of the closed list. This succession of defeats on a policy repeatedly attacked by the Government's own Back Benchers is an unprecedented humiliation for the Government.
Will the Government now state their intentions? Will they reconsider, or do they propose to put on the statute book, using the Parliament Act, a measure that was not in their manifesto and that is an affront to democracy?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Beith: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it not be possible for you to allow the Leader of the House to say whether the repeatedly expressed will of this House that there should be a proportional system will now be given effect by the Parliament Act?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for this evening's business, and therefore it is not a matter for the Chair.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.

Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Wednesday 16th December, proceedings on any Motions in the name of Margaret Beckett relating to modernisation of the House of Commons, sittings of the House or meetings of standing committees may continue, though opposed, until any hour and the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings not later than eight o'clock, or four hours

after the commencement of proceedings, whichever is the later, and such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by her which then be moved.—[Mr. Mikr Hall.]

Orders of the Day — PETITIONS

Old People's Homes (Essex)

Mr. Bob Russell: I wish to present a petition in the name of my constituent, Mary Blandon, and 600 other residents of Colchester and district opposing the sale of old people's homes by the Conservative-run Essex county council.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of Colchester and District, Deplores the proposal of Essex County Council to sell 33 of its 36 Old People's Homes, including Greenways, Marylands, Trippier House and Scarletts in Colchester; believe that this will deprive elderly people of a proper choice of accommodation provided by the public and private sectors; are concerned that the disposal will cause anxiety to existing residents and their families; and are dismayed that employees may experience less favourable terms of conditions if the Homes are privatised.
The Petitioners therefore urge the House of Commons to introduce legislation to prevent such mass disposals of Old People's Homes.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
To lie upon the Table.

Moreton

Mr. Eric Pickles: This petition is presented on behalf of the residents of Moreton, a small village in my constituency much used by television companies to show a rural idyll. It is threatened by a showman's permanent winter quarters, which would destroy the nature of the village. The petition is signed by 214 people out of a total population of 278; therefore, 77 per cent. of the population support the petition.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents and friends of the village of Moreton in the parliamentary constituency of Brentwood and Ongar.
Declare that the imposition of a permanent showman's site at the centre of the village of Moreton on Green Belt land, would increase the population of the village by a third and damage the unique character of Moreton.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons supports their plea to save both the Green Belt and the character of Moreton.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.

To lie upon the Table.

Derbyshire Community Transports

Judy Mallaber: I have pleasure in presenting a petition from the Forum of Derbyshire Community Transports, signed by 7,029 Derbyshire residents who use or support the "Community Transport" service in the county. It is also supported by Derbyshire Members of Parliament on a cross-party basis.
The petitioners note that commercial passenger transport companies that operate scheduled services are entitled to a rebate of their fuel duty. The rebate is not paid to "Community Transport" services, which last year in Derbyshire made half a million journeys carrying 10,000 elderly or disabled residents with mobility difficulties who were physically unable to use scheduled bus services.
The petition is beautifully inscribed on hand-made locally produced paper. It concludes:
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House enact such legislation, or change such legislation as may be necessary to end discrimination by allowing Companies or Organisations operating professional Community Transport type services for persons with mobility difficulties, to reclaim rebate of duties paid on fuel used to provide such services.

To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — Freight Vehicles (Fuel)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Dr. Alan Whitehead: I am delighted to have been selected to introduce this debate.
Freight vehicles come in all shapes and sizes, but the bulk of them are large trucks carrying goods the length and breadth of the land. Such vehicles do not contribute as much carbon dioxide to the atmosphere as cars, but we know from the recent transport White Paper that they provide a substantial load—some 9 per cent. of total carbon dioxide emissions, against 14 per cent. of the total for cars. They are also far more responsible than car traffic for certain pollutants such as small particles emitted by diesel engines, the preferred power source for most freight vehicles.
The AA recently pointed out that the 500,000 freight vehicles on the road produce more PM10—particulate matter—fine-particle emissions than the 23 million cars that are also sliding about. We also know that they contribute to the increasing congestion on the roads, and to noise pollution, as they make their deliveries in towns. Increasingly tight emission standards—soon to be tightened further—have been laid down by the European Union for exhaust gases issuing from freight vehicles.
The White Paper and the recent Green Paper on climate change set out plans to switch transport by both cars and lorries to other modes. Plans exist substantially to increase the freight carried by rail. Even if all those plans succeeded, however, only a small percentage of road transport would be shifted. At most, a switch to rail and other modes would level out road-hauled freight in the foreseeable future.
As it is likely that the articulated truck will be with us for a long time, we should consider means by which we can make it cleaner and quieter. We need to look at three elements of emissions: carbon dioxide emissions, emissions of noxious gases such as nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide and sulphur dioxide, and the deposit of particulates. Progress is being made with levels of all those emissions, in terms of cleaner engines; but the continued use of petrol or diesel as a fuel means that they will continue to be pumped out in substantial quantities.
What fuels might we look at? A number are potentially on offer, but only two present themselves immediately as realistic alternatives to petrol or diesel. First, we can modify diesel itself. Ultra-low-sulphur diesel will eliminate many particulate emissions, but the process of sulphur removal itself means, according to one petroleum company, that for every tonne of sulphur removed by the processing, 20 tonnes of carbon dioxide are discharged into the atmosphere. Biodiesel looks attractive and has the advantage of being CO2 neutral—it derives from crops that fix the CO2 in the first place—but the amount grown per gallon of biodiesel makes it difficult to conceive of serious production in the United Kingdom. There are similar problems with methanol or ethanol, which can also be CO2 neutral, in terms of crop production compared with the amount of fuel produced. For that reason and others, it is very expensive to produce.
The two candidates most likely to be of practical use currently are LPG—liquefied petroleum gas—and CNG—compressed natural gas. LPG has the advantage of


liquefying at normal temperatures and can be carried in a relatively compact tank. For natural gas to liquefy, a deep-freeze tank is needed; otherwise, the cylinders that contain it are somewhat bulky, and that can limit the range of a vehicle using the gas. LPG is a by-product of the petroleum cracking process, while natural gas is not and it has the advantage of being freely available—literally, via the mains. Natural gas is also essentially methane which can be derived from recycling processes such as organic waste digestion or it can be collected from the organic breakdown of landfill.
Both gases are undoubtedly much cleaner than petrol in all respects and emit virtually no particles, unlike diesel. They emit roughly the same CO2 as diesel. Although they are not by any means the perfect fuel substitute for petrol or diesel and are mineral fuels, their widespread use in cars and trucks would undoubtedly make a substantial contribution towards the targets that the Government are seeking from our use of vehicles in the United Kingdom. Conversions of petrol engines are relatively cheap, but conversions of diesel engines are substantially more expensive.
The problem for the debate and for the scenario is that virtually no large vehicles in the UK run on either LPG or CNG. Altogether 1.1 million vehicles do so in Italy, as do 400,000 in Holland. The buses in Vienna have run on natural gas for 40 years. In the UK, the estimated total of LPG vehicles—mostly cars—is below 8,000. The number of LPG or CNG freight or large passenger vehicles is so low that they can be identified and marvelled at almost individually. There are 10 in my constituency in the shape of natural gas buses which run quietly and smoothly, emit no exhaust fumes and are very popular with passengers. Safeway runs a small fleet of CNG trucks in London, as does Marks and Spencer. There is a relatively small number of other such vehicles, but that is about it.
There is progress, but it is painfully slow. Powershift, supported by the Energy Saving Trust, has supported the Safeway and Marks and Spencer initiative, and aims to convert 1,000 vehicles, mostly cars, to alternative fuels in 1,000 days. It is exceeding that target. I recently opened a fleet of police cars converted to LPG for the Hampshire constabulary. As I said on the day, I hope that the local criminal fraternity will show equal public awareness by converting a similar number of getaway cars to natural gas. However, there is no disguising the fact that the UK lags behind other countries and that in respect of freight vehicles we hardly register.
To understand why that is so, I spent a day with Boots the Chemists, looking at the national distribution procedures in Nottingham. I also spent time at B and Q headquarters near Southampton, finding out about its distribution procedures. I have spoken to a number of companies and trade federations with an interest in the matter.
I believe that some larger companies at least would like to introduce alternative fuels to their fleets for environmental reasons and because they realise that regulation will move them in that direction. They feel constrained, for example, by curfews on deliveries in towns. Quieter vehicles may help. They certainly worry about meeting new EU emission standards with their current fleets. So why do they not convert? I believe that there are four main reasons.
First, companies are concerned about the instability of the market in the United Kingdom. They are not sure whether there is or will be an industry standard and that, if they invest in new vehicles, those vehicles will have any resale value. They need some view of a long-term future for one or more alternative fuels in the United Kingdom. To put it crudely, the market will be mature when Dodgy Transport Ltd. buys a CNG truck from a company that has, in turn, bought it from Boots when that company has had its use from it.
Secondly, companies see little or no incentive to switch. They are uncertain about the Government's pricing policies on fuels. They know that there is a fuel escalator, but wonder whether their chosen alternative fuel will escalate too and, if so, over what period.
Thirdly, companies see little or no evidence that the infrastructure that will genuinely allow them to run their vehicles over long distances and use them flexibly is coming into existence. The Safeway and Marks and Spencer CNG fleets run, in effect, as rail routes to and from given destinations with fuelling taking place in one location—their home depots.
Boots uses its transport flexibly. It attempts to maintain a high load level by undertaking triangular journeys. After delivering goods, its trucks pick up supplies for the central distribution depot. Other companies, such as B and Q and Tesco, attempt to back-fill—they pick up recyclable waste on the way back to their depots after delivering. They have regional distribution depots, which could be shared by trucks needing to refuel. Companies may even be able to pool the cost of LPG or CNG fuelling plants, although they do not yet seem to be doing so.
Fourthly, companies see no evidence that manufacturers are providing the engines they would need. Perkins Diesel has recently announced that it is withdrawing its alternative fuel production plant from the UK. Despite obtaining a grant from Powershift, Safeway had to source its engines in Canada. The manufacturers are reluctant to produce, because they are uncertain about the extent to which their products would be sold.
There seems to be a logjam, despite the fact that many people agree that progress is vital. The immediate, oft-touted and easy solution, it is claimed, is for the Government to reduce duty on LPG and CNG. The decision to freeze duty on natural gas and LPG in the 1998 Budget was welcome, but many people now believe that an important incentive could be a reduction in the price of road gas, which would have an effect similar to that of the price differential that converted the UK motorist to lead-free petrol. Such a step is necessary, but not sufficient. We need a declared policy of long-term stability to allow investment planning and a programme to create a refuelling infrastructure that gives confidence to that planning.
I believe that many interest groups are waiting for a lead. That lead could come from the Government, who could at least broker the first moves to generate momentum. More than one of the individuals to whom I spoke during my recent inquiries asked: "Why doesn't someone get all the players together to discuss what might be done? Why don't the fuel suppliers, the major truck fleet operators and the manufacturers all sit around a table and talk about the moves that would get the industry going? Why don't you convene something?"
My contribution, I hope, will be to raise the subject in this Adjournment debate. I recognise the work of the cleaner vehicles task force, but I am not sure whether it addresses the logjam that I have described. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister whether the Government could convene such a round table. I believe that the places around the table would quickly be filled; the results could, in a very few years, be considerable.
I offer that suggestion for what it is worth. I do not expect my hon. Friend—who always seems to have the misfortune to have to reply to Adjournment debates that I initiate—to respond immediately, but I hope that she can give me some encouragement on what I consider to be an important issue for the Government's pollution targets and the general well-being of our country.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): May I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) that I do not regard participating in Adjournment debates as a misfortune? It is a privilege, especially when the debate concerns such an important subject.
Air pollution has become a matter of increasing public concern and political importance in recent years. Understanding of the medical effects associated with pollutants has also developed. A report published by the Department of Health earlier this year estimated that, in the UK alone, the short-term effects of air pollution may hasten the deaths of between 12,000 and 24,000 vulnerable people each year. Every year, a similar number of people are admitted to hospital suffering from respiratory illnesses because of short-term air pollution.
Air pollution is of concern to us all, whether we are pedestrians, drivers or cyclists. There is an assumption that, if one is in a car, one is somehow protected from pollution. Regrettably, this is not the case. Last year, my Department published a report based on a review of around 70 studies which showed that car occupants can be subject to levels of pollution two to three times higher than those suffered by pedestrians.
The Government are fully committed to improving the quality of the air we breathe. In July last year, the Government endorsed the national air quality strategy, on the basis that it would be reviewed at the earliest opportunity, with a view to delivering cleaner air more quickly. The Government intend to consult on the outcome of the review in the new year.
Road transport is responsible for a significant proportion of air pollution—for instance, an estimated 50 per cent. of nitrogen oxides come from that source. Any attempt to improve air quality therefore needs to address the problems that road transport can cause.
Increasingly stringent standards for vehicle emissions and fuel quality play an important role in improving air quality. The European auto-oil programme is the first project to propose vehicle emission reduction targets derived from a health-based assessment of air quality needs. It sets emissions standards for both engines and fuels, with increasingly tough standards being brought in from 2000. These standards are expected to halve

emissions of particulates and nitrogen oxides by 2005. Although such reductions are obviously to be warmly welcomed, in the longer term those gains could be at risk if traffic growth continues unchecked. Fortunately, the Government have stated publicly that we intend to change direction on transport policy.
It is essential to improve the environmental performance of all vehicles. The cleaner vehicles task force—to which my hon. Friend the Member for Test referred—which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport co-chairs along with Ian McAllister, chairman and chief executive of Ford UK, has been established to do just that, through promoting the production, purchase and use of cleaner, more fuel-efficient vehicles. At the moment, it is carefully considering, among other things, measures to improve the enforcement of existing emission standards for all vehicles, and the role of alternative fuels.
Alternative fuels such as compressed natural gas and liquid petroleum gas have an important role to play in the quest for cleaner vehicles. Their use can result in substantial reductions in emissions of pollutants such as carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulates when compared with conventional diesel. Alternative fuels can also emit less visible smoke and odour than diesel, which is an important consideration for urban areas. They have the potential to offer significant fuel-efficiency benefits.
A less well known benefit of using alternative fuels is the potential reduction in noise compared with that generated by conventional diesel vehicles. My hon. Friend the Member for Test referred to that matter in connection with buses. For example, Safeway has a number of articulated lorries powered by natural gas which it uses for deliveries in the Hammersmith and Fulham area. Because the vehicles are so quiet, the local authority has granted them extended delivery times. A further spin-off benefit is that deliveries can now take place outside the peak rush hours, so reducing congestion.
If we are to develop a truly sustainable transport system, we must consider not only road fuel gases such as LPG and CNG, but a whole range of cleaner fuels and technologies. For example, electric hybrid and fuel cell technologies offer the possibility, in the longer term, of significant reductions in the emission of both local air pollutants and greenhouse gases.
In addition, one must not forget that improved diesel and petrol technology means that those fuels are becoming cleaner and more efficient. For example, the increasingly widespread use of ultra-low-sulphur diesel, which now comprises around 17 per cent. of total diesel supplied, is to be welcomed because that results in significant reductions in particulate emissions.
Indeed, vehicle and fuel technology is generally developing so rapidly that the relative merits of different fuels can change almost from day to day. Government support for alternative fuels and vehicle technology must therefore remain even-handed.
Urban freight distribution raises difficult tensions between business, environment and amenity. The Government support the retail industry, and we certainly want vital, economically healthy town centres; but we want our town centres to be vital from every point of view: attractive places to live, to work and to visit, whether for business or pleasure.
Quality partnerships for freight between the road haulage industry, local authorities, business and the local community will help to develop an understanding of distribution issues and problems at a local level and to promote constructive solutions that reconcile the need for access for goods and services with local environmental and social concerns. Alternative fuels could have a useful role to play in such quality partnerships. For example, Safeway and its CNG delivery vehicles provide an example of a constructive solution that allows goods to be delivered while reducing the environmental impact.
We are committed to encouraging the use of cleaner fuels such as CNG and LPG through a package of measures, including fiscal incentives. My hon. Friend touched on that point earlier. In the most recent Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor froze the duty on road fuel gases for the second year in a row. We are also committed to retaining the differential in duty rates between gas fuels and diesel that existed at the 1997 Budget, to provide some certainty to the market. I hope that my hon. Friend will take comfort from that.
There is now a substantial difference between the duty on CNG and LPG and that on conventional fuels, providing a significant incentive for operators to switch from diesel to gas fuels. Indeed, the differentials are among the largest in the European Union. There are also other cost savings associated with road fuel gases; for instance, in lower maintenance costs.
The Government car service showed that there is a strong economic case for fleet operators to use gas fuels when it announced last year that the economic grounds for using road fuel gases, along with the environmental benefits, were strong enough to persuade it to convert its entire car fleet to run on CNG or LPG over the next five to six years. In a similar vein, the London borough of Merton has estimated that it will save around £5,000 a year for each of the natural gas refuse trucks that it currently operates.
The Government are offering operators of lorries and buses an incentive to adapt their vehicles to a higher environmental standard. From 1 January 1999, the reduced pollution scheme announced by the Chancellor in the March Budget will be implemented by regulations laid before Parliament last week.
Under the scheme, vehicles adapted to meet strict emissions standards will obtain a reduced pollution certificate that will reduce the vehicle excise duty by up to £500 a year. There are two ways in which the standards are likely to be achieved: by re-engining the vehicle to a higher environmental standard—including conversion to run on alternative fuels such as LPG or CNG—or by fitting a device that reduces particulate emissions. The Government believe that the scheme will encourage operators of lorries and buses to improve the environmental performance of their vehicles.
The price premium on larger gas-powered vehicles, such as buses and lorries, is more significant than for cars, partly because not enough vehicles are currently purchased to introduce significant economies of scale. To develop further the market for alternative fuels and to encourage people to buy gas and electric vehicles that are more expensive than their conventionally fuelled counterparts, my Department has funded the Powershift programme, run by the Energy Saving Trust.
Powershift's aim is to create a sustainable market for alternatively powered vehicles by pooling different companies and local authorities interested in purchasing such vehicles into partnerships to increase economies of scale; it provides grants for up to 75 per cent. of the additional cost of purchasing alternatively fuelled vehicles.
To date, Powershift has offered grants to assist in the purchase of more than 1,000 alternatively powered vehicles, including heavy goods vehicles, the majority of which have been ordered in the past year. For instance, the additional conversion costs of the Safeway lorries were partially offset by Powershift grants. Powershift has helped to secure more than £40 million-worth of orders to date.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport recently announced the Government's intention to support Powershift beyond its original three-year time scale. Although the detailed content of the next phase of Powershift's work has yet to be finalised, the programme will continue to support the move to gas-fuelled vehicles but will in addition explore more fully the potential environmental and energy efficiency benefits offered by other emerging technologies such as electric hybrid and fuel cell vehicles.
Under the new system of local air quality management, local authorities must put in place action plans to deal with poor air quality. As air quality tends to be poorest in urban areas, some local authorities may look to introduce low emission zones, areas in towns or cities into which only vehicles producing very low emissions would be allowed to enter. Since gas-powered vehicles are significantly cleaner than their conventionally fuelled counterparts, it is likely that they would be allowed to enter low emission zones: those zones could therefore provide a further boost for clean fuel vehicles.
A closely related project is Alternative Traffic in Towns—or ALTER—which my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister launched in April. Local authorities participating in that Europewide initiative will commit themselves progressively to replace their public vehicle stock with new lower emission vehicles, and to allow access to designated parts of their areas only to vehicles that meet stringent emission standards.
The Government are aware that a number of barriers remain to the further uptake of clean fuel vehicles. Some of those barriers are inherent properties of the fuel. For instance, the tank required to store CNG is large and heavy enough to reduce a bus's capacity by one passenger, or a lorry's payload by around a tonne, as my hon. Friend the Member for Test mentioned. However, there are also other problems, and the cleaner vehicles task force has set up a working group to look at the role for alternative fuels, and the barriers hindering their wider introduction into the marketplace.
One of industry's main concerns is the current limited refuelling infrastructure for both CNG and, to a slightly lesser extent, LPG. The situation is improving, however, in that there are more than 150 public LPG and natural gas refuelling points nationally, and more are being built on petrol station forecourts as demand for those fuels grows. In addition, the Powershift programme has targeted depot-based fleets where refuelling points can be most easily provided.
The Government have played their part in providing certainty to the alternative fuels market through their commitment to retaining the differential in duty rates between gas fuels and diesel that existed at the 1997 Budget. We must now look to industry to resolve any difficulties surrounding refuelling infrastructure. However, I am encouraged by recent announcements from fuel suppliers. For example, Shell has announced a £10 million plan to provide a nationwide network of 200 LPG sites by 2001. Other suppliers such as BP and Mobil are also scaling-up their involvement.
The Government have shown their continuing commitment to clean fuel vehicles through fiscal incentives and by giving greater certainty to the market through initiatives such as Powershift and the cleaner

vehicles task force. I am pleased to say that some parts of industry are also playing a full and active role through the provision and use of cleaner fuel vehicles and the provision of refuelling infrastructure. However, reducing the pollution produced by road transport in the face of increasing levels of traffic is a continuing challenge, and we cannot afford to be complacent. Government and industry must continue to work together to ensure that we take full advantage of the environmental benefits afforded by cleaner fuels and vehicles.
I will respond to the question put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Test by ensuring that his remarks and mine are brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, so that he may convey them to the other members of the cleaner vehicles task force.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Eleven o'clock.